You are on page 1of 242

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

KT QU IU TRA DOANH NGHIP NH V VA NM 2013

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


EVIDENCE FROM A SURVEY IN 2013

NH XUT BN TI CHNH

C IM MI TRNG
KINH DOANH VIT NAM
KT QU IU TRA DOANH NGHIP NH V VA NM 2013

CIEM, DoE v ILSSA


Thng 10, 2014

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

- ii -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Mc lc
Danh mc cc bng .................................................................................................................. ii
Danh mc cc hnh ................................................................................................................... v
Danh mc t vit tt ................................................................................................................ vi
Li ni u ............................................................................................................................... 1
Li cm n ............................................................................................................................... 3
1
Gii thiu ........................................................................................................................ 5
2
M t s liu v chn mu .............................................................................................. 7
2.1 Chn mu ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Thc hin iu tra ........................................................................................................ 13
2.3
Lin kt vi cc cuc iu tra trc ............................................................................ 14
3
Tc ng ca khng hong kinh t th gii ................................................................. 15
4
Tng trng v bin ng ca doanh nghip ............................................................... 18
4.1
Tng trng vic lm .................................................................................................. 19
4.2
Doanh thu ca doanh nghip ....................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Doanh nghip gia nhp th trng ................................................................................ 24
4.2.2 Doanh nghip thot khi th trng ............................................................................. 25
5
Quan liu, phi chnh thc v cc chi ph phi chnh thc ............................................. 34
5.1 Phi chnh thc, tng trng v thot khi th trng ................................................... 34
5.2 Thu v cc chi ph phi chnh thc .............................................................................. 36
6
u t v tip cn ti chnh .......................................................................................... 40
6.1 u t ........................................................................................................................... 40
6.2 Tn dng ....................................................................................................................... 44
7
Sn xut, cng ngh v nng sut lao ng ................................................................. 50
7.1 a dng ha v i mi ............................................................................................... 50
7.2 Cc c tnh ca nng sut lao ng ............................................................................ 55
7.3 Cng ngh v hiu qu k thut ................................................................................... 58
7.4 c tnh v u vo sn xut v dch v kinh doanh ................................................... 64
8
Lao ng ....................................................................................................................... 67
8.1 C cu theo tui ........................................................................................................... 67
8.2 C cu lc lng lao ng v tnh n nh .................................................................. 68
8.3 Gio dc, o to, iu kin lm vic v phng php tuyn dng ............................ 71
8.4 Cng on .................................................................................................................... 76
8.5 Xy dng mc lng, phc li x hi v hp ng ..................................................... 79
9
Bo v mi trng ........................................................................................................ 87
10
Thng mi v cu trc bn hng ................................................................................ 96
10.1 Hnh vi xut khu ........................................................................................................ 96
10.2 Cnh tranh v cu trc bn hng ................................................................................ 100
11
Kt lun ...................................................................................................................... 109
Danh mc ti liu tham kho................................................................................................ 113

-i-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Danh mc cc bng
Bng 2.1: S lng doanh nghip c phng vn..................................................................8
Bng 2.2: S lng doanh nghip c phng vn theo a phng v hnh thc php l
nm 2013 ................................................................................................................................. 8
Bng 2.3: S lng doanh nghip theo a phng v ngnh nm 2013 ................................ 9
Bng 2.4: S lng doanh nghip theo quy m v a bn ................................................... 10
Bng 2.5: S lng doanh nghip theo hnh thc php l v ngnh ngh nm 2013 ........... 11
Bng 2.6: S doanh nghip theo hnh thc s hu php l v quy m 2013 ........................ 12
Bng 2.7: S lng doanh nghip theo ngnh v quy m nm 2013 .................................... 13
Bng 2.8: Tng quan v cc doanh nghip cn hot ng .................................................... 14
Bng 3.1: Khng hong quc t c tc ng xu n iu kin kinh doanh i vi cc doanh
nghip khng? .........................................................................................................................15
Bng 3.2: Ma trn chuyn dch khng hong ......................................................................... 15
Bng 3.3: Khng hong quc t theo a bn v quy m doanh nghip (phn trm) ........... 16
Bng 3.4: Khng hong th gii hin ti mang li cc c hi thc hin kinh doanh
(phn trm) ..............................................................................................................................17
Bng 3.5: Ma trn chuyn dch c hi ....................................................................................17
Bng 4.1: Thng k vic lm bnh qun theo quy m doanh nghip .....................................19
Bng 4.2: Ma trn chuyn dch vic lm ................................................................................20
Bng 4.3: Tng trng vic theo lm a phng, hnh thc php l v quy m .................. 21
Bng 4.4: Tng trng vic lm theo ngnh ..........................................................................22
Bng 4.5: Cc nhn t quyt nh tng trng vic lm ........................................................23
Bng 4.6: Doanh nghip mi theo a bn, hnh thc s hu php l v quy m .................25
Bng 4.7: T l doanh nghip thot khi th trng theo a bn, hnh thc s hu php l,
quy m v hot ng xut khu ..............................................................................................26
Bng 4.8: T l doanh nghip thot khi th trng theo s nm hot ng .........................27
Bng 4.9: T l doanh nghip thot khi th trng theo ngnh ............................................28
Bng 4.10: Chuyn i ngnh t nm 2011 n 2013 ...........................................................29
Bng 4.11: Cc nhn t quyt nh doanh nghip thot khi th trng ................................30
Bng 4.12: Tm ng ca theo hnh thc php l ..................................................................32
Bng 4.13: Tm ng ca nm 2011 v thot khi th trng nm 2013 ..............................33

- ii -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Bng 4.14: Tm ng ca v thay i ngnh ......................................................................... 33


Bng 5.1: Thng k tm tt tnh chnh thc ........................................................................... 34
Bng 5.2: Ma trn chuyn dch tnh chnh thc ..................................................................... 35
Bng 5.3: Bin ng ca doanh nghip v tnh chnh thc.................................................... 35
Bng 5.4: T l li nhun thun trn tng li nhun ............................................................. 36
Bng 5.5: Bao nhiu doanh nghip chi hi l? ...................................................................... 37
Bng 5.6: Nhng thay i theo thi gian trong vic chi hi l .............................................. 37
Bng 5.7: Cc yu t quyt nh vic hi l: Nghi vn thng thng ................................... 38
Bng 5.8: Cc khon chi khng chnh thc v bin ng doanh nghip ............................... 39
Bng 6.1: u t mi ............................................................................................................. 40
Bng 6.2: Tnh hnh u t (ma trn chuyn dch u t) ..................................................... 41
Bng 6.3: Cc c im u t .............................................................................................. 41
Bng 6.4: Ngun ti chnh u t, theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn ............................ 42
Bng 6.5: Tip cn tn dng ................................................................................................... 44
Bng 6.6: Tip cn tn dng theo nhm doanh nghip .......................................................... 46
Bng 6.7: Loi hnh doanh nghip no gp kh khn v tn dng? ....................................... 46
Bng 6.8: Vay phi chnh thc v ro cn tn dng ................................................................. 47
Bng 6.9: Cc c tnh tip cn tn dng................................................................................ 48
Bng 7.1: T l a dng ha v ci tin (phn trm) ............................................................. 50
Bng 7.2: a dng ha v i mi phn theo ngnh, ngh (phn trm) ................................ 51
Bng 7.3: Ma trn chuyn dch a dng ha v i mi ........................................................ 52
Bng 7.4: Cc c tnh a dng ha v i mi .................................................................... 53
Bng 7.5: a dng ha, i mi v bin ng ca doanh nghip .......................................... 54
Bng 7.6: Nng sut lao ng theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn ................................... 56
Bng 7.7: Nng sut lao ng phn theo ngnh, ngh ........................................................... 57
Bng 7.8: Cc c tnh v nng sut lao ng ....................................................................... 58
Bng 7.9: Cc c tnh cng ngh (phn trm) ...................................................................... 59
Bng 7.10: Tc ng ca vic gii thiu cng ngh mi ....................................................... 61
Bng 7.11: Cc nhn t nh hng n hiu sut cng ngh ................................................ 64
Bng 7.12: Nng lc sn xut nm 2013 (phn trm) ............................................................ 65
Bng 8.1: C cu ca lc lng lao ng (phn trm ca tng s lao ng) ........................ 68

- iii -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Bng 8.2: C cu lc lng lao ng theo ngh (phn trm) .................................................69


Bng 8.3: Ma trn chuyn dch ngh nghip ..........................................................................70
Bng 8.4: Tnh n nh ca lc lng lao ng .....................................................................71
Bng 8.5: Nhng kh khn trong tuyn dng lao ng ..........................................................72
Bng 8.6: Phng php tuyn dng lao ng .........................................................................73
Bng 8.7: o lo lc lng lao ng ....................................................................................74
Bng 8.8: Trnh o to .....................................................................................................75
Bng 8.9: T l doanh nghip c cng on c s v thnh vin ca cng on c s.........76
Bng 8.10: Bin ng ca cng on c s (%).....................................................................78
Bng 8.11: Cc yu t quyt nh lng ................................................................................81
Bng 8.12: C s xy dng mc lng (%) ...........................................................................82
Bng 8.13: Phc li x hi (%)...............................................................................................83
Bng 8.14: Thi hn ca hp ng lao ng chnh thc (phn trm ngi lao ng) ...........86
Bng 9.1: Chng nhn tiu chun mi trng theo a phng, hnh thc php l v
quy m (%) .............................................................................................................................88
Bng 9.2: Chng nhn tiu chun mi trng ca cc doanh nghip h gia nh theo tnh
chnh thc ...............................................................................................................................89
Bng 9.3: Chng nhn tiu chun mi trng theo ngnh, ngh ...........................................90
Bng 9.4: Kh khn v chi ph tun th cc tiu chun mi trng ......................................93
Bng 10.1: Cc doanh nghip xut khu (phn trm) ............................................................96
Bng 10.2: Chi tit v cc doanh nghip xut khu (phn trm)............................................97
Bng 10.3: Doanh thu bnh qun v li nhun bnh qun/lao ng ton b thi gian ...........98
Bng 10.4: Cc nhn t quyt nh xut khu ....................................................................9898
Bng 10.5: Cnh tranh t cc ngun khc nhau ...................................................................101
Bng 10.6: Cc nhn t quyt nh tnh cnh tranh..............................................................103
Bng 10.7: S dng sn phm (phn trm) ..........................................................................104
Bng 10.8: C s khch hng (phn trm) ...........................................................................105
Bng 10.9: C cu kinh doanh (phn trm) ..........................................................................106
Bng 10.10: Cc tiu ch xc nh gi chnh (phn trm) ....................................................107
Bng 10.11: Cc nhn t quyt nh hot ng qung co ..................................................108

- iv -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Danh mc cc hnh
Hnh 4.1: Nhng kh khn quan trng nht theo nhn thc ca doanh nghip ..................... 18
Hnh 4.2: Doanh thu ca doanh nghip theo ngnh ............................................................... 24
Hnh 4.3: Nguyn nhn tm ng ca (phn trm) ................................................................ 31
Hnh 5.1: Khon chi hi l c dng lm g? ................................................................. 38
Hnh 6.1: u t c ngn sch t u? .................................................................................. 42
Hnh 6.2: Chi tit u t 2011-13 (%) ................................................................................... 43
Hnh 6.3: Chi tit u t 2011-2003 (phn trm) ................................................................... 44
Hnh 6.4: Ti sao cc doanh nghip khng np h s vay vn? ............................................ 45
Hnh 6.5: Nguyn nhn gp kh khn khi vay vn.....................................................................47
Hnh 7.1: Kh khn quan trng nht trong vic gii thiu sn phm mi (phn trm) ......... 55
Hnh 7.2: Cng ngh mi ....................................................................................................... 60
Hnh 7.3: Hiu sut cng ngh trung bnh (TE) ..................................................................... 62
Hnh 7.4: Chi tit v cc nh cung cp nguyn liu th ......................................................... 66
Hnh 7.5: Cc nhn t v tiu ch chnh ca vic chn nh cung cp .................................... 66
Hnh 8.1: C cu tui ca ch s hu v ngi qun l doanh nghip ............................ 67
Hnh 8.2: Ch tch cng on................................................................................................. 78
Hnh 8.3: Lng thng bnh qun nm 2013 (n v 1.000 VND) ........................................ 79
Hnh 8.4: Lng thng thc t bnh qun theo ngh nghip (n v 1.000 VND) ................ 80
Hnh 8.5: Phc li x hi theo gii tnh ca ch s hu v ngi qun l (phn trm) ........ 84
Hnh 8.6: Hp ng chnh thc theo gii tnh ca ch s hu v ngi qun l .................. 85
Hnh 9.1: Kin thc v lut mi trng (%) .......................................................................... 91
Hnh 9.2: L do c chng nhn tiu chun mi trng (phn trm) ..................................... 92
Hnh 9.3: Doanh nghip x l cc yu t mi trng no? (phn trm) ............................... 94
Hnh 9.4: u t cho thit b nhm t c tiu chun mi trng (t VND, gi tr thc) ....... 94
Hnh 10.1: Th trng xut v nhp khu .............................................................................. 99
Hnh 10.2: Cm nhn v mc cnh tranh (phn trm) ................................................... 101
Hnh 10.3: Nhng kh khn ch yu trong vic bn hng tn kho (phn trm) .................. 103
Hnh 10.4: a im ca khch hng (phn trm) .............................................................. 105
Hnh 10.5: Loi hnh qung co (phn trm) ...................................................................... 107

-v-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Danh mc t vit tt
BRC

Giy chng nhn ng k kinh doanh

BSPS

Chng trnh h tr khu vc doanh nghip

CIEM

Vin Nghin cu qun l kinh t Trung ng

CPI

Ch s gi tiu dng

DOLISA

S Lao ng - Thng binh v X hi

ESC

Chng nhn tiu chun mi trng

EIA

nh gi tc ng mi trng

HCMC

Thnh ph H Ch Minh

ILSSA

Vin Khoa hc Lao ng v X hi

ISIC

Bng phn ngnh chun quc t

GSO

Tng cc Thng k

HH

H gia nh

MOLISA

B Lao ng - Thng binh v X hi

MONRE

B Ti nguyn v Mi trng

MPI

B K hoch v u t

S quan st

OLS

Bnh phng nh nht thng thng

SD

lch chun

SME

Doanh nghip nh v va

USD

la M

VHLSS

iu tra mc sng h gia nh Vit Nam

VND

Vit Nam ng

- vi -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Li ni u
Cun sch ny gii thiu thng tin thu thp c t cuc iu tra Doanh nghip nh
v va (DNNVV) ln th nm. Kt qu thu c t cc vng iu tra trc, c bit l vng
iu tra nm 2005, 2007, 2009 v 2011 khuyn khch Vin Nghin cu qun l kinh t
Trung ng (CIEM) thuc B K hoch v u t (MPI), Vin Khoa hc lao ng v cc
vn x hi (ILSSA) thuc B Lao ng, Thng binh v X hi (MOLISA), Khoa Kinh
t (DoE) thuc Trng i hc tng hp Copenhagen vi s h tr ca i S qun an
Mch ti Vit Nam ln k hoch v thc hin mt cuc iu tra tip theo vo nm 2013.
Cuc iu tra ny c thit k da trn bn vng iu tra trc . Cuc iu tra c tin
hnh bao gm cc cuc phng vn trc tip trong thng 6, thng 7 v thng 8 nm 2013 i
vi gn 2.500 doanh nghip nh v va ngoi quc doanh hot ng trong khu vc ch bin.
iu tra c thc hin ti 10 tnh v thnh ph bao gm H Ni, Hi Phng, thnh ph H
Ch Minh (HCMC), H Ty1(c), Ph Th, Ngh An, Qung Nam, Khnh Ha, Lm ng
v Long An. Bo co ny cng c xy dng da trn nhng doanh nghip c phng
vn vo cc nm 2005, 2007, 2009 v 2011. Cc nghin cu tip theo s s dng mu ca
cuc iu tra gm gn 2.500 doanh nghip nh v va trong c cc doanh nghip c
iu tra lp li t nm 2005
Cc cuc iu tra DNNVV c thit k t n lc hp tc nghin cu vi mc tiu thu
thp v phn tch s liu i din ca ton b khu vc t nhn ti Vit Nam. iu ny c
ngha l khng ch c cc doanh nghip ln hoc doanh nghip ng k chnh thc mi
c phng vn. Thay vo , iu tra DNNVV ch trng vo c s d liu c thu
thp thng qua cc sng kin khc ti Vit Nam vi quan tm c bit n vic thu thp s
liu v tm hiu s bin ng ca cc DNNVV ti Vit Nam.
Bo co ny trnh by tng quan thng tin c bn t c s d liu DNNVV 2013, c s
so snh ph hp vi s liu ca nm 2011 v cc vng iu tra trc. Tuy nhin cng cn lu
rng bo co khng th bao qut ton b s liu c thu thp v chng ti khuyn khch
c gi tham kho bng hi (c sn trn mng) c s dng trong thu thp s liu thy
c ton din cc vn . Cc nghin cu su v mt s vn c la chn i vi nn
kinh t khu vc t nhn ca Vit Nam, c s dng c s d liu ny, ang c thc hin.

H Ty sp nhp vo H Ni vo u nm 2009. Tuy nhin, trong bo co ny H Ty vn c xem l

mt tnh ring kt qu ca cuc iu tra c th so snh c vi cc nm trc.

-1-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

-2-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Li cm n
Nhm tc gi chn thnh cm n Tin s Nguyn nh Cung - Vin trng, b V
Xun Nguyt Hng - nguyn Ph Vin trng, Vin Nghin cu qun l kinh t Trung ng
(CIEM) v Tin s Nguyn Th Lan Hng - Vin trng Vin Khoa hc lao ng v x hi
(ILSSA) hng dn thc hin cc cng vic t khi bt u n khi kt thc v bo m
s hp tc hiu qu gia tt c cc bn c lin quan.
Trng nhm nghin cu l Gio s John Rand. Tham gia vo nhm nghin cu cn
c Tin s Neda Trifkovic ca Khoa Kinh t. V pha CIEM, c s tham gia ca ng Bi
Vn Dng v ng Nguyn Thnh Tm vo nhm nghin cu. Gio s Finn Tarp l ngi
iu phi v gim st hot ng nghin cu trong tt c cc giai on.
Cng vic ca chng ti s khng th thc hin c nu thiu s hp tc, t vn v
chuyn mn v khch l t cc c nhn v n v khc nhau. Chng ti c bit mun gi li
cm n i vi s hp tc c hiu qu v y khch l ca nhm iu tra t ILSSA. Tin s
Nguyn Th Lan Hng cng vi cc ng nghip ca mnh iu phi cc nhm nghin
cu ny. Nu khng c n lc khng mt mi ca ILSSA trong vic tng hp bng hi, tp
hun iu tra vin, tin hnh iu tra trn a bn v lm sch s liu, tt c cc cng vic
khc u khng th thc hin.
Nhm nghin cu cng nh gi cao cc DNNVV dnh thi gian cho cc cuc
phng vn c thc hin trong nm 2013 trong nghin cu ny. Chng ti hy vng rng
nghin cu ny s hu ch i vi cc chnh sch c a ra nhm ci tin cc hot ng
kinh doanh ca doanh nghip.
Cui cng, mc d bo co c hon thnh vi nhiu kin ng gp t ng nghip
v bn b, nhm nghin cu vn l ngi chu trch nhim hon ton vi bt k sai st v
khim khuyt cn tn ti. Tt c cc hnh thc bo trc thng thng u c p dng.

-3-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

-4-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

GII THIU

Cc doanh nghip nh v va (DNNVV) tip tc l trung tm i vi qu trnh pht


trin kinh t x hi ca Vit Nam. Do vy, nm bt c nhng kh khn m cc DNNVV
ang i mt v tim nng ca cc doanh nghip ny ng vai tr rt quan trng trong bi
cnh khu vc t nhn ti Vit Nam tip tc chim t trng ngy cng ln i vi tng trng
kinh t v vic lm.
Mt trong s nhng tc ng ngy cng su sc n iu kin kinh doanh m cc
DNNVV Vit Nam ang thc hin l khng hong kinh t th gii hin ti. Cuc khng
hong gp phn to ra cc thay i v mi trng bn ngoi i vi doanh nghip tt c
cc quy m v mang li nhng thch thc v c hi cho cc DNNVV do rt nhiu tc ng
ln nh khc nhau. Cc chnh sch hu khng hong c xy dng nhm duy tr sc cnh
tranh ca cc DNNVV Vit Nam v s liu c thu thp ca cuc iu tra mang li c hi
duy nht cho hot ng nghin cu chnh sch c lin quan. Hot ng nghin cu ny c th
a ra cc thng tin v s bin ng ca khu vc DNNVV ti Vit Nam v nng cao kh nng
h tr s pht trin hn na ca khu vc ny theo phng thc c hiu qu. V mt ny, cuc
iu tra nm 2013 ng vai tr quan trng trong vic phn tch tc ng ca cuc khng
hong ti chnh th gii n cc DNNVV Vit Nam mc no. Bo co ny trnh by tc
ng ca cuc khng hong ti Chng 3. Thng qua vic phn tch cc vn khc nhau v
c im hot ng thng xuyn ca cc DNNVV, cc chng tip theo a ra bc tranh chi
tit hn v phm vi v tc ng ca cuc khng hong.
Tnh linh hot trong vic i ph vi khng hong quc t c th c xem l mt
trong cc nhn t quan trng i vi tng trng kinh t. Do vy, cn phi tm hiu doanh
thu ca doanh nghip, tnh t l doanh nghip mi c thnh lp v doanh nghip ng ca
khi nh gi phn ng ca khu vc DNNVV i vi s thay i ca mi trng kinh doanh.
Bo co ny trnh by c th s liu v tng trng v doanh thu ca doanh nghip ti
Chng 4. Kt qu cho thy tng s vic lm gim 7.4%, t l doanh nghip ng ca cao
hn t l doanh nghip c thnh lp song song vi nhng thay i ca cc ngnh sn xut
chnh v cc doanh nghip tm thi ng ca. Ti Chng 5 chng ti cng trnh by liu
nhng thay i ny c lin quan n cc ch tiu chnh v mi trng kinh doanh nh tnh
quan liu, thc hin kinh doanh khng chnh thc v cc khon chi khng chnh thc.
Mi trng kinh doanh c ci tin lin tc c vai tr quan trng i vi cc ngnh
thu li nhun t vic kinh doanh v u t ln hn. Nm nay chng ti nhn thy tnh hnh
thch thc hn i vi cc DNNVV khi quyt nh nn ng k kinh doanh chnh thc hoc
s dng cc khon chi khng chnh thc t c mc tiu kinh doanh ca mnh. Doanh
nghip hot ng chnh thc c tc ng tng trng vic lm tch cc c xc nhn
trong vng iu tra ny. Do vy bc tip theo s l tip tc cc chnh sch khuyn khch
hot ng chnh thc ha cc doanh nghip.
Mt cch khc o lng c mi trng kinh doanh c tc ng nh th no n
s tng trng ca cc DNNVV l nghin cu v s tip cn ti chnh v hot ng u t
ca doanh nghip. Nghin cu ny c thc hin ti Chng 6. V vn ny, chng ti

-5-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

thy t l doanh nghip gp kh khn v tn dng thp hn rt t so vi s liu trong nm


2011 v c s tip cn tt hn vi cc hnh thc tn dng chnh thc. Tuy nhin, vic s
dng tn dng phi chnh thc vn cao hn hai ln so vi tn dng chnh thc. iu ny tc
ng ln n hot ng u t ca cc DNNVV v s liu cho thy nm 2013 cc doanh
nghip ny u t vo doanh nghip t hn so vi nm 2011.
Cc c im v sn xut v cng ngh, cng nh nng sut lao ng c cp ti
Chng 7 vi ch trng c bit n vic nh gi mc a dng ha v ci tin. Cng
nh bo co nm 2011, chng ti nhn thy xu hng chuyn mn ha ngy cng tng ln
nhng t l ci tin th thp hn nhiu, c tnh theo s lng sn phm mi c gii
thiu v s lng sn phm hin c c ci tin.
Mt s vn v iu kin vic lm c cp ti Chng 8. Chng ti phn tch c
cu v tnh n nh ca lc lng lao ng; hc vn, o to, iu kin ni lm vic v cc
phng php tuyn dng; cng on cng nh vic xy dng mc lng, phc li x hi v
hp ng lao ng. Nhn chung, c cu lao ng ca cc DNNVV rt tng ng vi nm
2011, t l s dng lao ng n cao hn mt cht. c bit, ph n c trnh hc vn cao
c li th trong cng vic. So vi nm 2011, c nhiu doanh nghip t chc tp hun cho
nhn vin mi hn v gp thch thc trong vic thu ht ngi lao ng vi cc mc k
nng ph hp. Khi xem xt cc pht hin ny, chng ti thy dng nh vic vt qua cc
ro cn v thng tin gia ngi s dng lao ng v ngi lao ng c th mang li nhng
bin chuyn tch cc cho th trng lao ng.
Hn ch tc ng mi trng cng l mt thch thc vi cc DNNVV trn ton th
gii vi sc p ngy cng tng v vic chuyn sang cc sn phm v hot ng thn thin
vi mi trng. Nm nay, chng ti n phng vn li nhng doanh nghip c s dng
chng nhn mi trng ti Chng 9. Kin thc v lut mi trng v s dng chng nhn
mi trng vn l mt im yu trong iu tra ny cng nh trong cc k iu tra trc.
Vic tng bc nng cao nhn thc v kin thc v lut mi trng ca cc DNNVV c
xem l mt thnh t quan trng i vi cc chnh sch v cc cuc tranh lun pht trin.
Chng cui cng cp v hot ng thng mi ca cc DNNVV thng qua nghin
cu c cu thng mi v kinh doanh. Cc kt qu cho thy t l doanh nghip c hot ng
xut khu bng vi t l ny ca nm 2011 vi th trng nc ngoi chnh vn l cc quc
gia chu lng ging. xc nhn thm cho nhn xt ban u ca chng ti rng cc iu
kin v mi trng kinh doanh ngy cng tr nn kh khn hn i vi cc DNNVV,
chng cui cng cho thy cc doanh nghip chu sc cnh tranh ln hn so vi cc nm
trc y.
Kt lun ca bo co nhn mnh rng hai nm va qua ang mang li nhiu thch thc
cho cc DNNVV. Nhng thch thc ny phn nh hai vn ln: lm th no ci thin
hot ng ca doanh nghip v lm th no nng cao vic gia nhp vo nn kinh t th
gii bng vic cn i gia s pht trin, i mi v duy tr kinh doanh. Thng ip chnh
l, nh trong cc nm trc, cn phi kt ni cc DNNVV v cc hot ng ca chnh ph
trong kinh doanh v cc n lc chnh sch dn n tng trng kinh t.

-6-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

M T S LIU V CHN MU

2.1 Chn mu
Cc cuc iu tra DNNVV trong nm 2005, 2007, 2009 v 2011 l cc cuc iu tra
ton din vi khong t 2.500 n 2.800 doanh nghip ti 10 tnh thnh c nh trong cc
doanh nghip cn hot ng c phng vn li trong tng vng iu tra (iu tra theo di).
Quy trnh chn mu nm 2013 tun theo quy trnh chn mu ca cc nm 2005, 2007, 2009 v
2011. Tng mu cc doanh nghip ch bin ngoi quc doanh ti 10 tnh thnh c chn da
trn hai ngun s liu t Tng cc Thng k Vit Nam (GSO): Tng iu tra C s nm 2002
(GSO, 2004) v iu tra cng nghip 2004-2006 (GSO, 2007). T Tng iu tra c s, mt s
c s kinh doanh c th khng p ng cc iu kin quy nh trong Lut Doanh nghip c
lc ra, nhm ny sau y c gi l doanh nghip h gia nh; kt hp thng tin ny vi s
liu v cc doanh nghip c ng k chnh thc theo Lut Doanh nghip cp tnh t iu tra
Cng nghip (GSO, 2013), cung cp thng tin b sung v doanh nghip t nhn, doanh nghip
tp th, cng ty hp danh, cng ty trch nhim hu hn t nhn v cng ty c phn. Cc cng
ty lin doanh b loi khi mu do mc tham gia ln ca chnh ph v nc ngoi (thng
khng r) vo c cu s hu. Thng tin chi tit v chn mu c trong cc bo co trc y
(v d CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012).
Mu nm 2013 c chn t tng mu cho cc cuc iu tra nm 2005, 2007, 2009 v
2011 (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012; CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010; Rand v
cng s, 2008; Rand & Tarp, 2007). Tuy nhin, s liu ca iu tra theo di, mc no
s bao gm nhng thay i v c cu php l trong iu kin nhiu doanh nghip tr
thnh cc doanh nghip chnh thc. Hn na, cc doanh nghip ng ca c thay th
ngu nhin da trn hai tiu ch sau: (i) t l doanh nghip h gia nh khng thay i da
trn thng tin ca GSO (2004) v (ii) s liu v tng mu mi cc doanh nghip trong nm
2013 c ng k kinh doanh theo Lut doanh nghip t GSO (sp c).
Mt c im ring ca s liu iu tra DNNVV l s liu iu tra bao gm c doanh
nghip h gia nh c v khng ng k (khng chnh thc). iu tra cng bao gm nhng
doanh nghip h gia nh khng chnh thc (khng c ng k kinh doanh hoc m s thu
v khng ng k vi c quan c thm quyn cp huyn) da trn vic xc nh ti a bn.
Do vy, iu tra bao gm tt c cc doanh nghip khng chnh thc hot ng song song vi
cc doanh nghip c ng k chnh thc. iu tra bao gm mt s doanh nghip khng ng
k vi c quan c thm quyn l mt ng gp quan trng v duy nht ti Vit Nam. Tuy
nhin, cn lu rng mu cc doanh nghip khng chnh thc ca chng ti khng i din
cho ton b khu vc phi chnh thc ca Vit Nam v vic chn mu ca iu tra DNNVV
da trn tng cc cuc tng iu tra v iu tra doanh nghip ca GSO m cc cuc iu tra
ny ch bao trm mt phn ca khu vc phi chnh thc.
Bng 2.1 cho thy c 2.461 doanh nghip c phng vn trong nm 2013. Mt s doanh
nghip cho bit h khng phi l doanh nghip ch bin (33 doanh nghip trong ngnh dch v)
mc d h c ng k trong chng nhn chnh thc l nh sn xut cc sn phm ch bin.

-7-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

so snh, ct 2 trong Bng 2.1 cho thy s lng doanh nghip c phng vn trong nm
2011 tng tnh. S liu iu tra lp li ca 1.988 doanh nghip c xy dng phc v hot
ng phn tch.
Bng 2.1: S lng doanh nghip c phng vn
c phng vn nm 2013

c phng vn nm 2011

H Ni

268
280

Ph Th

255

251

H Ty

342

340

Hi Phng

182

200

Ngh An

343

345

Qung Nam

160

155

Khnh Ha

88

94

Lm ng

77

76

TP. H Ch Minh

600

568

Long An

134

122

2.461

2.419

Tng

Ghi ch: Mu cn bng bao gm 1.995 quan st mi nm.

Trn mi lnh vc, cc mu u c phn t theo hnh thc php l m bo mi


loi hnh doanh nghip ngoi quc doanh u c iu tra bao gm doanh nghip h gia
nh, doanh nghip t nhn, cng ty hp danh/hp tc x, cng ty trch nhim hu hn v
cng ty c phn. Bng 2.2 trnh by s lng doanh nghip ch bin ngoi quc doanh c
iu tra phn theo loi hnh php l. Trong tng s cc doanh nghip c phng vn, 63%
l doanh nghip h gia nh so vi gn 90% trong tng mu doanh nghip. iu ny c
ngha l s lng doanh nghip phi h gia nh nhiu hn so vi yu cu ca mu iu tra.
Bng 2.2: S lng doanh nghip c phng vn
theo a phng v hnh thc php l nm 2013
Doanh
nghip h
gia nh

Doanh nghip
t nhn/1
thnh vin

Doanh nghip
hp danh/tp
th/hp tc x

Cng ty
trch nhim
hu hn

Cng
ty c
phn

Tng s

H Ni

117

21

13

94

35

280

Ph Th

222

20

255

H Ty

270

53

342

Hi Phng

81

20

15

42

24

182

Ngh An

250

24

42

22

343

Qung Nam

119

11

26

160

Khnh Ha

53

13

19

88

Lm ng

55

10

12

77

Tp H Ch Minh

284

68

13

225

10

600

Long An

102

18

13

134

Tng mu

1.553

198

55

546

109

2.461

-8-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Mt s c im thng i km vi cc bin ng ca doanh nghip, c bit l a


bn, ngnh ngh, hnh thc s hu php l v quy m doanh nghip. Tt c cc c im
ny i din cho s bin i ca cc c im th trng v/hoc t chc doanh nghip.
Bng 2.2 n 2.7 trnh by cc bng biu khc nhau v cc nhn t dn n bin ng doanh
nghip in hnh.
Bng 2.3 tp trung vo ngnh ngh v a bn ca cc doanh nghip. M ngnh da
trn m ca Bng phn ngnh chun quc t (ISIC). u tin, ba ngnh ln nht xt v s
lng doanh nghip l Ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15), sn xut sn phm t kim loi c sn
(ISIC 28) v ch bin sn phm t g (ISIC 20). Nhng ngnh ny l nhng ngnh ch o
trong iu tra DNNVV 2011. Bn cnh , kt qu ny kh tng ng vi s liu phn b
theo ngnh ca GSO (2004, 2007).
Bng 2.3: S lng doanh nghip theo a phng v ngnh nm 2013
M
ISIC

H
Ni

Ph
Th

H Hi Ng Qung Khnh Lm Tp Long Tng Phn


Ty Phng An Nam Ha ng HCM An
s trm

15

Sn phm thc phm


v ung

71

117

87

40

120

56

38

29

144

53

755 (30,7)

17

Dt

48

29

96

(3,9)

18

May mc, v.v...

18

20

54

115

(4,7)

19

Thuc da v da may mc

21

50

(2,0)

20

G v cc sn phm g

14

43

97

12

35

16

11

246 (10,0)

21

Giy v cc sn phm giy 14

37

72

(2,9)

22

Xut bn, in n, v.v...

13

30

64

(2,6)

23

Du m tinh ch, v.v...

(0,3)

24

Sn phm ha hc, v.v...

11

25

52

(2,1)

25

Sn phm cao su v nha

33

11

64

131

(5,3)

26

Sn phm khong phi kim 14

15

21

13

102

(4,1)

27

Kim loi c bn

27

(1,1)

28

Sn phm kim loi c

48

45

28

51

61

41

13

18

87

29

421 (17,1)

29-32 My mc

10

30

65

(2,6)

34

Xe c, v.v...

12

(0,5)

35

Phng tin giao thng

(0,4)

36

Ni tht, v.v...

11

19

39

13

53

19

20

11

198

(8,0)

37

Ti ch

(0,2)

SER Dch v

33

(1,3)

280

255

342

182

343

160

88

77

600

Tng s
Phn trm

134 2,461 (100,0)

(11,4) (10,4) (13,9) (7,4) (13,9) (6,5) (3,6) (3,1) (24,4) (5,4) (100,0)

Ghi ch: S liu l s lng doanh nghip (phn trm nhm trong ngoc n).

Bng 2.5 trnh by cc bng s liu theo a bn -quy m. 2/3 mu thuc nhm cc
doanh nghip siu nh vi 1-9 lao ng. Bn cnh , cc doanh nghip khu vc thnh th
(H Ni, Hi Phng, Tp H Ch Minh) c t trng doanh nghip siu nh thp hn so vi cc
tnh nng thn.

-9-

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Bng 2.4 trnh by a bn v quy m ca doanh nghip2, 2/3 mu thuc nhm cc doanh
nghip siu nh vi 1-9 lao ng. Bn cnh , cc doanh nghip khu vc thnh th (H Ni,
Tp H Ch Minh) c t trng doanh nghip siu nh thp hn so vi cc tnh nng thn.
Bng 2.4: S lng doanh nghip theo quy m v a bn
Siu nh

Nh

Va

Tng s

Phn trm

147

111

22

280

(11,4)

(52,5)

(39,6)

(7,9)

(100,0)

229

20

255

(89,8)

(7,8)

(2,4)

(100,0)

256

76

10

342

(74,9)

(22,2)

(2,9)

(100,0)

121

43

18

182

(66,5)

(23,6)

(9,9)

(100,0)

282

44

17

343

(82,2)

(12,8)

(5,0)

(100,0)

135

22

160

(84,4)

(13,8)

(1,9)

(100,0)

62

23

88

(70,5)

(26,1)

(3,4)

(100,0)

57

17

77

(74,0)

(22,1)

(3,9)

(100,0)

364

189

47

600

(60,7)

(31,5)

(7,8)

(100,0)

110

21

134

(82,1)

(15,7)

(2,2)

(100,0)

Tng s

1.763

566

132

2.461

Phn trm

(71,6)

(23,0)

(5,4)

(100,0)

H Ni
Ph Th
H Ty
Hi Phng
Ngh An
Qung Nam
Khnh Ha
Lm ng
Tp HCM
Long An

(10,4)
(13,9)
(7,4)
(13,9)
(6,5)
(3,6)
(3,1)
(24.4)
(5,4)
(100,0)

Ghi ch: S liu v s lng doanh nghip v t trng doanh nghip ca tng a phng theo nhm quy m
(phn trm nhm trong ngoc n). Siu nh: 1-9 lao ng; Nh: 10-49 lao ng; Va: 50-299 lao ng; Ln:
300 lao ng tr ln (nh ngha ca Ngn hng Th gii).

nh ngha ca chng ti v doanh nghip quy m siu nh, nh, va v ln tun theo cc nh ngha hin nay ca

Ngn hng th gii. Ban DNNVV ca Ngn hng th gii hot ng vi ba nhm trong cc doanh nghip nh v va: siu nh,
nh v va. Cc doanh nghip siu nh c n di 10 lao ng, cc doanh nghip nh c n di 50 lao ng, cc doanh
nghip va c n di 300 lao ng, v cc doanh nghip ln c trn 300 lao ng. Cc nhm quy m ny da trn s lng
lao ng lm vic ton b thi gian, bn thi gian v lao ng khng c nh. Cc nh ngha ny c Chnh ph Vit Nam
chp nhn rng ri, v d trong Ngh nh s 90/2001/CP-N ca Chnh ph v Tr gip Pht trin DNNVV n Ngh nh
56/2009/ND-CP trong doanh nghip c xem l doanh nghip nh nu c t 10 n 200 lao ng, l doanh nghip va nu
c t 200 n 300 lao ng trong tt c cc ngnh ngh tr thng mi v dch v. Vi ngnh ny doanh nghip nh l doanh
nghip c t 10 n 50 lao ng v doanh nghip va l doanh nghip c di 100 lao ng . Nhm doanh nghip siu nh cng
tng t nh m t trong nh ngha chng ti s dng. Chng ti vn gi nguyn phn t cc nhm doanh nghip nh c
m bo tnh so snh vi bo co ca cc nm trc y. Vic tm hiu thng tin tc ng ca vic thay i nh ngha quy m
doanh nghip NVV ln kt qu ca cuc iu tra nm ngoi phm vi ca bo co ny.

- 10 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Bng 2.5 cho thy 63% s doanh nghip trong mu l cc doanh nghip h gia nh.
T l doanh nghip trong nhm ch bin thc phm c ng k l cc doanh nghip h
gia nh cao hn mc trung bnh ca mu (40%). Tng t i vi cc doanh nghip trong
ngnh cc sn phm kim loi c (ISIC 28) v ch bin g (ISIC 20). Cng ty TNHH
ch yu thuc cc ngnh: ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15), kim loi c (ISIC 28), cc sm
phm cao su v nha (ISIC 25). Doanh nghip thuc cc ngnh giy v cc sn phm giy
(ISIC 21), xut bn v in n (ISIC 22), cc sn phm ha cht (ISIC 24) v my mc (ISIC
29-35) cng ch yu l cc cng ty TNHH. Cc cng ty t nhn c xu hng ch bin thc
phm, kim loi v g trong khi cc doanh nghip hp danh c xu hng ch bin g, cao su
v nha. Trong ngnh ch bin thc phm, kim loi c, sn xut cao su, nha v sn xut
khong phi kim ch yu l cc cng ty c phn.
Bng 2.5: S lng doanh nghip theo hnh thc php l v ngnh ngh nm 2013
Doanh
Doanh
Cng ty
Doanh
nghip hp
Cng
nghip t
trch
Tng
nghip h
danh/tp
ty c
nhn/1
nhim
s
gia nh
th/hp tc
phn
thnh vin
hu hn
x

ISIC

15

Sn phm
v ung

17

thc

phm

Phn
trm

615

39

78

18

755

(30,7)

Dt

63

26

96

(3,9)

18

May mc, v.v...

50

12

45

115

(4,7)

19

Thuc da v da may mc

33

50

(2,0)

20

G v cc sn phm g

176

16

10

36

246

(10,0)

21

Giy v cc sn phm giy

12

12

37

72

(2,9)

22

Xut bn, in n, v.v...

17

12

33

64

(2,6)

23

Du m tinh ch, v.v...

(0,3)

24

Sn phm ha hc, v.v...

15

27

52

(2,1)

25

Sn phm cao su v nha

42

14

10

55

10

131

(5,3)

26

Sn phm khong phi kim

57

10

20

10

102

(4,1)

27

Kim loi c bn

12

27

(1,1)

28

Sn phm kim loi c

278

40

82

17

421

(17,1)

29-32 My mc

17

31

65

(2,6)

34

Xe c, v.v...

12

(0,5)

35

Phng tin giao thng

(0,4)

36

Ni tht, v.v...

142

10

38

198

(8,0)

37

Ti ch

(0,2)

SER

Dch v

15

33

(1,3)

Tng s

1.553

196

66

503

95

Phn trm

(63,1)

(8,0)

(2,2)

(22,2)

Ghi ch: S liu l s lng doanh nghip (phn trm nhm trong ngoc n).

- 11 -

2.461 (100,0)

(4,4) (100,0)

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Theo Bng 2.6, khong 62% s doanh nghip va ng k l Cng ty TNHH so vi


con s 10% ca doanh nghip siu nh. Chnh xc c mt na cc doanh nghip nh c
ng k l cc cng ty TNHH. Khong 14% cc doanh nghip nh thuc s hu t nhn,
trong khi 5% ca nhm doanh nghip ny c ng k l cng ty hp danh hoc hp tc
x. 22% cng ty c phn thuc nhm doanh nghip va v 10% thuc nhm doanh nghip
nh. 81% tng s cc doanh nghip siu nh l cc c s h gia nh, iu ny kh tng
quan khi nghin cu tc ng tng trng c th c ca vic chuyn i c cu t phi chnh
thc sang chnh thc (Rand & Torm, 2012 c thng tin chi tit hn v vn ny; xem
Rand & Tarp, 2012).
Bng 2.6: S doanh nghip theo hnh thc s hu php l v quy m 2013
Siu
nh

Nh

Va

Tng
s

Phn
trm

1.435

118

1.553

(63,1)

Doanh nghip t nhn


/1 thnh vin

103

80

15

198

(8,0)

Doanh
nghip
hp
danh/tp th/hp tc x

18

31

55

(2,2)

Cng ty TNHH

181

283

82

546

(22,2)

Cng ty c phn

26

54

29

109

(4,4)

Tng s

1.763

566

132

2.461

(100,0)

Phn trm

(71,6)

(23,0)

(5,4)

(100,0)

C s/Doanh
h gia nh

nghip

Cui cng, Bng 2.7 cho thy s bin i ln quy m doanh nghip theo cc ngnh
khc nhau. V d, trong ngnh ch bin thc phm, khong 84% s doanh nghip l cc
doanh nghip siu nh so vi 13% v 3% tng ng l c doanh nghip nh v va.Theo so
snh, t l doanh nghip siu nh trong ngnh sn xut giy (ISIC 21) l 37.5. S lng
doanh nghip nh cng vt s lng doanh nghip siu nh trong ngnh sn xut ha cht
(ISIC 24) v cao su (ISIC 25). Trong cc ngnh xut bn v in n (ISIC 22), xe c (ISIC 34)
v ti ch (ISIC 37), ch yu l cc doanh nghip siu nh v nh, khng c doanh nghip
quy m va trong cc ngnh ny.

- 12 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 2.7: S lng doanh nghip theo ngnh v quy m nm 2013
ISIC

Siu nh

Nh

Va

Tng s

Phn trm

15

Sn phm thc phm v ung

637

97

21

755

(30,7)

17

Dt

59

32

96

(3,9)

18

May mc, v.v...

59

42

14

115

(4,7)

19

Thuc da v da may mc

34

14

50

(2,0)

20

G v cc sn phm g

182

54

10

246

(10,0)

21

Giy v cc sn phm giy

27

34

11

72

(2,9)

22

Xut bn, in n, v.v...

43

21

64

(2,6)

23

Du m tinh ch, v.v...

(0,3)

24

Sn phm ha hc, v.v...

23

25

52

(2,1)

25

Sn phm cao su v nha

61

55

15

131

(5,3)

26

Sn phm khong phi kim

55

30

17

102

(4,1)

27

Kim loi c bn

17

27

(1,1)

28

Sn phm kim loi c

344

63

14

421

(17,1)

29-32

My mc

29

27

65

(2,6)

34

Xe c, v.v...

12

(0,5)

35

Phng tin giao thng

(0,4)

36

Ni tht, v.v...

152

40

198

(8,0)

37

Ti ch

(0,2)

SER

Dch v

19

13

33

(1,3)

1.763
(71,6)

566
(23,0)

132
(5,4)

2.461
(100,0)

(100,0)

Tng s
Phn trm

Ghi ch: S liu l s lng doanh nghip (phn trm nhm trong ngoc n).

2.2 Thc hin iu tra


Cuc iu tra ny b gii hn trong mt s khu vc c th ca tng tnh/thnh ph
n gin ha vic thc hin. Thng l t cc vng iu tra trc, mu c chn ngu nhin
t danh sch cc doanh nghip da trn tng mu cc doanh nghip ch bin ngoi quc
doanh. Qu trnh chn mu theo phn tng c s dng m bo mt s lng tng
xng cc doanh nghip ti mi tnh/thnh theo cc hnh thc s hu php l khc nhau.
Trong nhng trng hp doanh nghip h gia nh chnh thc khng tng thch, cc doanh
nghip h gia nh chnh thc v phi chnh thc c xc nh ti a bn s thay th cho
cc doanh nghip h gia nh c chn trc . iu ny cho php c s tham gia ca
cc doanh nghip h gia nh khng ng k kinh doanh nhng vn hot ng song hnh
vi cc doanh nghip chnh thc
Kha tp hun cho cc iu tra vin c t chc vo ma xun nm 2013 trc khi
tin hnh iu tra. Hot ng ny to iu kin xc nh v lm r nhng im cn bn
khon v chnh sa nhng ni dung c kh nng b hiu nhm khi iu tra. V cc iu tra
vin c sn kinh nghim ng k t cc cuc iu tra trc , trn thc t kha tp hun
c t chc di hnh thc tho lun, trao i v thu c nhng phn hi c gi tr v
thit k bng hi.

- 13 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

iu tra doanh nghip c 10 nhm iu tra thc hin. iu tra vin bao gm cc
nghin cu vin ca ILSSA, cn b t cc V khc nhau ca MOLISA v 10 i din t
DOLISA. Mi nhm gm mt trng nhm (gim st vin) v mt s iu tra vin. S
lng iu tra vin trong tng nhm ph thuc vo c mu trong tng a bn. iu tra thc
t c thc hin trong hai giai on. Trong giai on u, iu tra vin n cc a bn
iu tra v xc nh s doanh nghip s lp li v thng nht danh sch cc doanh nghip s
iu tra vi chnh quyn a phng. Trong mt s trng hp cc doanh nghip chuyn
a bn hoc ch s hu so vi cuc iu tra nm 2011 v vic xc nh xem doanh nghip
cn tn ti na hay khng l mt cng vic tn nhiu thi gian v cng sc. Trn c s
nhng t cng tc ny, danh sch cc doanh nghip s iu tra tip tc c cp nht v
xy dng mu ngu nhiu cho cc doanh nghip mi. Giai on th hai ca cuc iu tra
c bt u vo ma thu nm 2013 v ko di ba thng. Trong giai on ny, vic iu tra
c thc hin trc tip ti doanh nghip bng phiu iu tra. S liu c kim tra s b v
lm r ngay ti ch. Trn c s s liu c c, s liu iu tra 2013 c x l tip v gp
vi tp s liu iu tra 2011 kim tra tng thch.

2.3 Lin kt vi cc cuc iu tra trc


Bng 2.8 trnh by t l cc doanh nghip c iu tra trc y vn cn hot
ng. 1.998 doanh nghip c tm thy v xc nhn tham gia cuc iu tra, 431 doanh
nghip c khng nh l khng cn tn ti. Khong 30 doanh nghip (7% s doanh
nghip c kh nng ng ca) b tht lc trong qu trnh chn mu hoc khi tip cn th t
chi tr li bng hi. Do nhng doanh nghip ny b loi khi c s d liu nm 2011 v
2013. S liu cho thy t l tn ti ca cc doanh nghip trong giai on t 2011 n 2013 l
90,6%, gim nh so vi t l 92,2% trong giai on 2009-2011. T l ny c th so snh vi
t l bnh qun 9-10% doanh nghip thot khi ngnh trong nghin cu ca Liedholm v
Mead (1999) mt s quc gia ang pht trin.
Bng 2.8: Tng quan v cc doanh nghip cn hot ng
c iu tra nm 2011

Tn ti
Khng nh thot

2011

2013

2.419
(2.449)

1.988
431

T l tn ti

82,2

T l tn ti hng nm

90,6

Doanh nghip mi c iu tra

473

Tng s c iu tra nm 2013

2.461

Ghi ch: Chng ti gp kh khn trong vic theo di ch s hu (trc y) ca cc doanh nghip
ng ca. Khng th tm thy mt s doanh nghip hoc ch s hu t chi tr li bng hi.
Tng s 93% (431 trong s 461) doanh nghip c khng nh thot khi th trng.

Trong cc phn tip theo, cc phn tch tp trung vo cuc iu tra nm 2013 nhng
trong mt s trng hp s kt ni thng tin vi cuc iu tra nm 20011 v 2009 nhm
theo di s pht trin ca doanh nghip.

- 14 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

TC NG CA KHNG HONG KINH T TH GII

Da trn nhng cu hi trc tip v cc tc ng nhn thy c t cuc khng hong


quc t vi ch s hu v ngi qun l doanh nghip, Bng 3.1 cho thy 62% doanh
nghip c phng vn trong nm 2011 cho bit khng hong quc t c tc ng xu n
cc iu kin kinh doanh ca doanh nghip. T l ny tng ln n 68,3% trong nm 2013.
Nu quan st mu lp li, khong cch gia nm 2011 v 2013 thm ch cn cao hn vi t
l cao hn cc doanh nghip cho bit h chu tc ng xu t cuc khng hong.
Bng 3.1: Khng hong quc t c tc ng xu n
iu kin kinh doanh i vi cc doanh nghip khng?
Tng mu
Mu lp li

S quan st

Phn trm C

2011

(2.419)

61,9

2013

(2.461)

68,3

2011

(1.988)

61,1

2013

(1.988)

69,4

Bng 3.1 cho thy cc tc ng ca cuc khng hong din ra lu hn so vi hnh


dung ban u. Ma trn chuyn dch khng hong (Bng 3.2) cng cho thy 62% doanh
nghip trong iu tra 2011 tr li Khng gp kh khn g v kinh doanh do cuc khng
hong quc t 2008 cho bit b tc ng bi cuc khng hong. Mt khc, 26% doanh
nghip chu tc ng ca cuc khng hong n iu kin kinh doanh trong nm 2011 cho
bit cc tc ng xu ban u ca cuc khng hong khng cn nh hng ng k n
doanh nghip trong nm 2013. Bng 3.2 cng cho thy ch c 294 trong s 1.988 doanh
nghip (14,8%) trong c 2 vng iu tra u cho bit khng b tc ng bi cuc khng
hong.
Bng 3.2: Ma trn chuyn dch khng hong

Khng hong Khng 2011


Khng hong C 2011
Tng s
Phn trm

Khng hong
Khng 2013

Khng hong
c 2013

Tng s

Phn trm

294

479

773

(38,9)

(38,0)

(62,0)

(100,0)

316

899

1.215

(26,0)

(74,0)

(100,0)

610

1.378

1.988

(30,6)

(69,4)

(100,0)

(61,1)
(100,0)

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

Bng 3.3 cho thy cc doanh nghip thnh th chu nhiu tc ng ca khng hong
quc t 2007/2008 (theo nhn thc ca ch s hu v ngi qun l). So vi nm 2011 khi
tc ng ca cuc khng hong th hin r nt hn ti min Nam, cc quan st t iu tra
nm 2013 cho thy khng hong tc ng n nhiu doanh nghip hn ti min Bc. C
th nhn thy ti min Nam, mc nh hng ca khng hong theo nhn thc gim
nh hn. Cng nh nm 2011, cc doanh nghip h gia nh t chu tc ng bi khng

- 15 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

hong hn so vi cc doanh nghip chnh thc. Cng v tc ng ca khng hong, chng


ti thy s lng doanh nghip chu tc ng ca khng hong tng ln tt c cc nhm
quy m. Mc tng thp nht thuc nhm cc doanh nghip quy m va. C th gii thch
cho iu ny l vic tip cn tn dng ca cc doanh nghip trong nhm ny c ci
thin trong giai on t nm 2011 n 2013 trong khi cc doanh nghip nh hn li gp kh
khn nhiu hn (xem Phn 6.2 Tn dng).
Bng 3.3: Khng hong quc t theo a bn v quy m doanh nghip (phn trm)
Nm

2011

2013

Tt c cc doanh nghip

61,9

68,3

Siu nh

55,1

65,0

Nh

72,6

79,4

Va

82,6

84,7

Thnh th

70,3

75,8

Nng thn

54,7

64,8

Min Nam

69,2

66,8

Min Bc

55,1

71,2

Ghi ch: Mu lp li (1.988 quan st hng nm).

Cc doanh nghip ang s dng nhiu bin php khc nhau i ph vi khng hong,
trong c ct gim chi ph sn xut (58%) v tm kim th trng mi cho u ra (49%) l cc
bin php c dng nhiu nht. Gn 1/5 s doanh nghip th thay i hoc i mi dch v
v cc hot ng. Khng th trnh khi vic mt s DNNVV gim quy m hoc thay i thnh
phn ca lc lng lao ng. Trong khi c khong 13% s doanh nghip ng ph vi cuc
khng hong bng cch phn b li lao ng trong doanh nghip, 9% doanh nghip gim sn
xut. Cc bo co khc cho thy nhng lao ng trn l ng vin hng u cho vic m doanh
nghip siu nh ring (ILO, 2009). Thnh cng ca h trong vic tm kim v khai thc cc c
hi kinh doanh mi r rng l ph thuc rt nhiu vo cc iu kin hot ng kinh doanh nh
tip cn tn dng, mc quan liu v c cu th trng.
Trong nm 2011, khong 5% doanh nghip tin rng khng hong to ra mt s c hi
cho doanh nghip, c bit l i vi cc doanh nghip ln c xy dng chnh thc c th
tn dng c cc li ch ny (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). Xu hng ny vn duy tr vi
8% s lng doanh nghip trong nm 2013 tin rng khng hong quc t mang li c hi
cho cc iu kin kinh doanh ca doanh nghip (Bng 3.4). Nghin cu a bn ca doanh
nghip, chng ti thy cc doanh nghip nng thn v thnh th c cng nim tin v cc c
hi do khng hong mang li. S khc bit gia cc doanh nghip nng thn v thnh th l
cc doanh nghip nng thn thy khng hong mang li li ch nhiu hn so vi hai nm
trc y. Doanh nghip thnh th khng thay i quan im nhiu lm v cuc khng
hong so vi nm 2011. Cc doanh nghip c min Nam v min Bc u c xu hng
xem khng hong l mt c im c li ca th trng. Cc doanh nghip min Bc tr nn
lc quan hn so v im ny so vi hai nm trc y. So snh cc doanh nghip c iu
tra theo quy m, chng ti thy cc doanh nghip quy m va tm c nhiu c hi trong

- 16 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

khng hong nhiu hn so vi cc doanh nghip quy m nh v siu nh. Ch c cc doanh


nghip quy m nh t lc quan hn v khng hong so vi nm 2011.
Cui cng, ma trn chuyn dch c hi trong Bng 3.5 cho thy ch c 16 trong s
1.988 doanh nghip vn tin tng rng khng hong quc t mang li cc c hi kinh doanh
tch cc. Cc doanh nghip s t ny nhn thy tc ng tch cc thng qua kh nng tip
cn u vo r hn, t cnh tranh hn v ngun lao ng c k nng sn c hn.
Bng 3.4: Khng hong th gii hin ti
mang li cc c hi thc hin kinh doanh (phn trm)
Mu y

Mu lp li

2011

2013

2011

2013

Tt c cc doanh nghip

5,6

7,9

4,7

8,0

Thnh th

10,7

7,9

8,8

7,6

Nng thn

1,7

7,9

1,8

8,4

Min Nam

5,4

7,5

5,1

7,0

Min Bc

5,7

8,3

4,4

8,8

Siu nh

4,1

7,9

3,6

8,0

Nh

9,0

7,1

7,3

7,0

Va

8,3

12,1

5,8

14,3

(2.419)

(2.464)

(1.988)

(1.988)

S quan st

Ghi ch: S quan st trong ngoc n.

Nhng kt qu ny cho thy phn ln DNNVV nhn thy khng hong quc t c tc
ng xu ng k n iu kin thc hin kinh doanh. Tuy nhin, nhng kt lun ny da
trn nhn thc ca cc doanh nghip c iu tra. V trong khi khng nn hoi nghi tnh
xc thc t cu tr li ca cc doanh nghip, vic phn tch cc tc ng ca khng hong
quc t theo nhn thc ca doanh nghip c tng ng vi m hnh bin ng ca doanh
nghip hay khng (tn ti/thot khi th trng v tng trng) vn l mt trong nhng
ti trng tm ca bo co ny.
Bng 3.5: Ma trn chuyn dch c hi
C hi Khng
2013

C hi C
2013

Tng s

Phn
trm

1.751

144

1.895

(95,3)

(92,4)

(7,6)

(100,0)

77

16

93

(82,8)

(17,2)

(100,0)

Tng s

1.828

160

1.988

Phn trm

(92,0)

(8,0)

(100,0)

C hi Khng 2011
C hi C 2011

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

- 17 -

(4,7)
(100,0)

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

TNG TRNG V BIN NG CA DOANH NGHIP

Theo quan im ca cc doanh nghip, khng hong quc t v mi trng kinh doanh
dng nh xu i, vic tm hiu cc nhn t dn n cc bin ng ln trong khu vc
DNNVV v cc cu phn ca khu vc ny cng rt th v. Chng ti bt u phn ny vi
vic nghin cu nhn thc ca cc doanh nghip v cc vn doanh nghip gp trong thc
hin kinh doanh v nhng vn ny thay i nh th no theo thi gian. Tip theo, chng
ti tm hiu v s bin ng ca cc doanh nghip v mt tng trng vic lm v thot khi
th trng.
Nhn chung, t l cc DNNVV gp ro cn ln vi tng trng doanh nghip rt cao.
Trong nm 2013, 84% doanh nghip c kh khn. T l ny tng nh (khong 1 im phn
trm) so vi nm 2011. T l doanh nghip tin rng h khng gp tr ngi l 16% v t l
ny khng thay i t nm 2009 (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). Hnh 4.1 trnh by nhn
thc ca cc DNNVV c iu tra v cc ro cn quan trng nht i vi tng trng ca
doanh nghip.
Hnh 4.1: Nhng kh khn quan trng nht theo nhn thc ca doanh nghip
2011

2013

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Thiu vn/tn
dng

Sn phm hin Cnh tranh qu Thiu my mc Thiu c s sn


ti gii hn v
ln
hin i
xut
nhu cu

Tip cn vi tn dng c ch ra l vn kh khn nht i vi doanh nghip trong


c hai nm 2011 v 2013. Tuy nhin, chng ti thy t l doanh nghip gp kh khn ny
gim t 45% trong nm 2011 xung 30% trong nm 2013. Tip theo l vn cu i vi
cc sn phm hin ti gim. Nu trong nm 2011 c 19% DNNVV xem cu gim l mt
thch thc ln i vi tng trng th t l ny trong nm 2013 l 27%. Sc p cnh tranh
cng l mt kh khn c t l doanh nghip xc nhn tng ln t nm 2011 n nm 2013
vi 21% doanh nghip chu sc p cnh tranh ln. Nm 2013 cng c nhiu doanh nghip
gp kh khn v thiu my mc hin i hn so vi nm 2011. V c s sn xut, t l
doanh nghip gp kh khn nm 2013 gim so vi nm 2011.

- 18 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Theo quan im ca cc doanh nghip, cc c im ca mi trng kinh doanh tr


nn xu i, vic tm hiu cc nhn t dn n cc bin ng ln trong khu vc DNNVV v
cc cu phn ca khu vc ny cng rt th v. Chng ti chuyn sang nghin cu s bin
ng ca doanh nghip, vi ch trng c bit v (i) tng trng doanh nghip v (ii) doanh
nghip thot khi th trng.

4.1 Tng trng vic lm


Phn (a) trong Bng 4.1 m t cc c lng cc c tnh trung bnh v trung v s
lng lao ng thng xuyn ton thi gian trong nm 2011 v 2013 theo quy m doanh
nghip. Phn (b) m t t l doanh nghip c s thay i v s lng lao ng ton b thi
gian t nm 2011 n nm 2013. Tng s lao ng ton thi gian ca 1.998 DNNVV gim
t 27.509 trong nm 2011 xung cn 23.589 trong nm 2013, tng ng vi mc gim tng
s vic lm 7,4% trong giai on 2 nm. Mc gim st ny cng c phn nh trong mc
gim st s lng lao ng trung bnh t 13,8 trong nm 2011 xung 11,9 trong nm 2013
vi tt c cc nhm quy m. Tuy nhin, doanh nghip nh v va c t l gim lao ng
ton b thi gian cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip siu nh. 60% doanh nghip nh v 71%
doanh nghip quy m va gim lc lng lao ng n nh t nm 2011 n nm 2013.
Bng 4.1: Thng k vic lm bnh qun theo quy m doanh nghip
(a)
S lng lao ng thng xuyn
ton b thi gian
2011
Tng s

Tng s

2013

Siu nh

Trung v

Trung bnh

Trung v

Gim

Khng i

Tng

13,8

5,0

11,9

5,0

41,6

30,8

27,6

(827)

(613)

(548)

32,2

38,4

29,3

(442)

(527)

(402)

60,3

14,9

24,8

(299)

(74)

(123)

71,1

9,92

19,0

(86)

(12)

(23)

3,8

(1.988)
3,0

(1.374)
Nh

20,2

3,7

3,0
(1.430)

17,0

20,0

(496)
Va

Thay i vic lm

Trung bnh

(1.988)
Quy m

(b)
Thay i t 2011 n 2013
(t l doanh nghip)

101,2

(460)
85,0

(121)

17,0

92,1

80,0
(98)

Ghi ch: Phn (a) trnh by thng tin cho mu lp li ca 1.988 doanh nghip. Phn (b) trnh by t l doanh
nghip c thay i s lng lao ng. S quan st trong ngoc n.

Bng 4.1 cho thy quy m doanh nghip ring l c s thay i ln theo thi gian.
Mt phng php khc minh ha s bin ng ca cc doanh nghip l quan st cc ma
trn chuyn dch vic lm, mt cng c thng c s dng nh gi tnh linh hot.
Bng 4.2 trnh by s chuyn dch vic lm ca cc doanh nghip siu nh, nh v va t
nm 2011 n nm 2013. S liu cho thy cc doanh nghip nhn chung c xu hng gi
nguyn quy m ca mnh trong hai nm qua. Khong 94% s doanh nghip siu nh vi
t 1 n 9 lao ng trong nm 2011 vn thuc nhm doanh nghip siu nh trong nm 2013.
Khng c doanh nghip siu nh no chuyn sang nhm doanh nghip va, nhng nh
nm 2011, cc doanh nghip siu nh c thay i v quy m ch chuyn ln nhm doanh

- 19 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

nghip nh. Khong 72% cc doanh nghip nh v va vn gi nguyn quy m, nhng


khong 25% s doanh nghip trong nhm ny gim quy m, phn nh xu hng cc doanh
nghip ny gim quy m theo thi gian. Ch 2% cc doanh nghip nh chuyn sang nhm
doanh nghip va. Xu hng chuyn dch vic lm ny tng t nh xu hng trong giai
on 2009-2011 (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012).
Bng 4.2: Ma trn chuyn dch vic lm
Siu nh 2013

Nh 2013

Va 2013

Tng s

Phn trm

1.297

74

1.371

(69,0)

(94,6)

(5,4)

(0)

(100,0)

130

355

11

496

(26,2)

(71,6)

(2,2)

(100,0)

31

87

121

(2,5)

(25,6)

(71,9)

(100,0)

Tng s

1.430

460

98

1.988

Phn trm

(71,9)

(23,1)

(4,9)

(100,0)

Siu nh 2011
Nh 2011
Va 2011

(24,9)
(6,1)
(100,0)

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

Bng 4.3 trnh by mc tng trng vic lm bnh qun hng nm (c tnh bng cn
bc hai ca s lao ng thng xuyn ton b thi gian nm 2013 chia cho cn bc hai ca
s lao ng thng xuyn ton b thi gian nm 2011) theo a phng, hnh thc s hu
php l v quy m doanh nghip. u tin, chng ti thy mc tng trng vic lm bnh
qun t nm 2011 n 2013 l m trong khi mc tng trng bnh qun trong giai on
2009-2011 gi nguyn. T l ny gim 1,29% t nm 2011 n 2013, chnh lch ng k so
vi mc tng trng vic lm dng ca giai on 2005-2009 (thng tin chi tit xem CIEM,
DoE, ILSSA, 2010; Rand v cng s, 2008; Rand & Tarp, 2007). Th hai, doanh nghip
hu ht cc a phng c mc tng trng m v s lng lao ng ton b thi gian. iu
ny tri ngc so vi giai on 2009-2011 khi ch c 4 tnh c mc tng trng vic lm
m. Ch c DNNVV ca 3 tnh trong mu l Qung Nam, Lm ng v Ngh An c gia
tng lc lng lao ng bnh qun.
Kt qu theo cu trc php l ca doanh nghip cho thy mc gim vic lm tt c
cc nhm. Doanh nghip h gia nh v cng ty 1 thnh vin c mc gim tng trng vic
lm hn so vi bnh qun ca mu, cc nhm doanh nghip khc c mc gim bnh qun
cao hn trong giai on 2011-2013. S liu cng ch ra mi quan h ngc chiu gia quy
m doanh nghip v tng trng vic lm. Doanh nghip siu nh l nhm doanh nghip
duy nht c tng s lng lao ng ton b thi gian mc 2,6% mc d mc tng ny thp
hn so vi mc tng trong giai on 2005-2011. Cng nh trong giai on 2009-2011, cc
doanh nghip nh v va c mc tng trng vic lm m tng ng t 9% n 13%. Nhn
chung, nhng con s ny cho thy khng hong quc t ang tc ng n tnh hnh vic
lm ca cc doanh nghip nh v va ti 10 tnh thnh. So vi cc kt qu trong bo co
trc (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012) c th thy tc ng ca khng hong
quc t n vic lm tr nn su sc hn.

- 20 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 4.3: Tng trng vic theo lm a phng, hnh thc php l v quy m
S
quan st

Trung
bnh

SD

Trung v

Thay i
phn trm

Tng s

Tng s

1.988

0,987

0,280

1,000

-1,29

a
phng

H Ni

203

0,992

0,270

1,000

-0,76

Ph Th

209

0,954

0,274

1,000

-4,61

H Ty

276

0,986

0,330

1,000

-1,42

Hi Phng

152

0,937

0,273

0,997

-6,32

Ngh An

303

1,008

0,264

1,000

0,88

Qung Nam

140

1,074

0,304

1,000

7,37

Khnh Ha

72

0,975

0,359

0,904

-2,49

Lm ng

58

1,028

0,265

1,000

2,82

HCMC

463

0,984

0,250

1,000

-1,59

Long An

112

0,943

0,239

0,931

-5,73

1.316

0,996

0,282

1,000

-0,35

T nhn/1 thnh vin

154

0,989

0,272

1,000

-1,05

Hp danh/tp th/
hp tc x

47

0,956

0,321

0,968

-4,37

Cng ty TNHH

395

0,973

0,276

0,992

-2,70

Cng ty c phn

76

0,912

0,244

0,928

-8,81

1.371

1,026

0,290

1,000

2,57

Nh

496

0,910

0,239

0,935

-8,97

Va

121

0,864

0,218

0,913

-13,56

Hnh thc
php l

Quy m

C s h gia nh

Siu nh

Ghi ch: T l tng trng bnh qun hng nm (phi trng s) c xc nh bng (vic lm thng xuyn ton
b thi gian 2013/vic lm thng xuyn ton b thi gian 2011)^

Bng 4.4 trnh by nhng thay i v tng trng vic lm theo ngnh. Tr ngnh thc
phm, dt, cao su v ha cht, tt c cc ngnh u c t l vic lm gim trong giai on
2011-2013. Mc gim ln nht - hn 6% l mc gim ngnh ch bin da (ISIC 19), my
mc in t (ISIC 29-32) v xe c (ISIC 34). So vi giai on 2009-2011, ngnh dt (ISIC
17), cao su (ISIC 25) v ha cht (ISIC 24) c s chuyn dch t tng trng vic lm m
ln tng trng vic lm dng.

- 21 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 4.4: Tng trng vic lm theo ngnh

Ngnh Tng s

S
quan st

Trung
bnh

SD

Trung v

Phn trm
thay i

1.988

0,987

0,280

1,000

-1,3

15

Sn phm thc phm v ung

616

1,003

0,256

1,000

0,3

17

Dt

81

1,025

0,329

1,000

2,5

18

May mc, v.v...

93

0,964

0,289

1,000

-3,6

19

Thuc da v da may mc

36

0,937

0,301

1,000

-6,3

20

G v cc sn phm g

203

0,985

0,325

1,000

-1,5

21

Giy v cc sn phm giy

49

0,984

0,206

1,000

-1,6

22

Xut bn, in n, v.v...

50

0,970

0,231

1,000

-3,0

24

Sn phm ha hc, v.v...

32

1,042

0,316

1,000

4,2

25

Sn phm cao su v nha

102

1,037

0,265

1,000

3,7

26

Sn phm khong phi kim

88

0,977

0,251

1,000

-2,3

27

Kim loi c bn

29

0,930

0,297

0,925

-7,0

28

Sn phm kim loi c

356

0,973

0,268

1,000

-2,7

29-32

My mc

57

0,938

0,256

0,975

-6,2

34

Xe c, v.v...

14

0,932

0,267

1,000

-6,8

36

Ni tht, v.v...

165

0,962

0,346

0,953

-3,8

Ghi ch: Chng ti loi cc ngnh c di 10 quan st.

Bng 4.5 kt hp thng tin t hai bng trc qua cc c lng bnh phng nh nht
(OLS) cho tt c cc yu t ch yu quyt nh n s bin ng ca doanh nghip. Ct u
tin khng c cc bin ngnh, ct th hai bao gm 17 bin gi ngnh. Th nht, Bng 4.5
cho thy mi quan h t l nghch gia tng trng vic lm v quy m doanh nghip trong
c hai c lng. Khi c nh a bn, hnh thc php l v ngnh, cc doanh nghip siu
nh c mc tng trng vic lm hng nm cao hn 17% so vi cc doanh nghip nh v
23% so vi doanh nghip va. Th hai, Qung Nam ni bt trong to vic lm. Nu so snh
vi Thnh ph H Ch Minh, cc doanh nghip Qung Nam c mc tng trng vic lm
hng nm cao hn 6%. Th ba, nh trong iu tra trc, cc doanh nghip h gia nh to ra
t vic lm hn so vi cc loi hnh doanh nghip khc trong khu vc ch bin3. Tuy nhin,
cc nhn t quyt nh truyn thng ch ng gp t 7% n 8% n bin ng tng trng
vic lm. Do vy trong cc phn tip theo, nguyn nhn v gii thch b sung cho s pht
trin v bin ng quan st c ca cc doanh nghip ch bin Vit Nam s c tm ti
v phn tch.

Tuy nhin cn lu rng quy m doanh nghip v c cu php l c tng quan cao vi nhau. Vic loi cc
bin quy m (khng bo co) dn cc c tnh ch s nh tt c cc loi hnh doanh nghip tr cng ty c phn.

- 22 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 4.5: Cc nhn t quyt nh tng trng vic lm
Khng c bin ngnh
Quy m
doanh nghip
a bn

Ch s

t-stats

Ch s

t-stats

Nh

-0,166***

(-9,69)

-0,171***

(-9,80)

Va

-0,231***

(-8,43)

-0,237***

(-8,53)

H Ni

0,010

(0,45)

0,016

(0,70)

Ph Th

-0,057**

(-2,52)

-0,051**

(-2,11)

H Ty

0,004

(0,17)

0,006

(0,24)

-0,059**

(-2,32)

-0,045*

(-1,72)

0,003

(0,18)

0,015

(0,71)

Qung Nam

0,060**

(2,13)

0,074**

(2,51)

Khnh Ha

-0,017

(-0,41)

-0,008

(-0,19)

Lm ng

0,024

(0,67)

0,033

(0,92)

Long An

-0,073***

(-2,84)

-0,067**

(-2,53)

T nhn/1 thnh vin

0,074***

(3,05)

0,075***

(3,09)

0,083*

(1,74)

0,069

(1,44)

Cng ty TNHH

0,085***

(4,02)

0,082***

(3,87)

Cng ty c phn

0,070**

(2,05)

0,065*

(1,87)

Hi Phng
Ngh An

Hnh thc
s hu

C bin ngnh

Hp danh/Tp th/
Hp tc x

C bin gi ngnh

Khng

S quan st

1.988

1.988

S quan st

0,07

0,08

Ghi ch: OLS Bin ph thuc: Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi ln 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm c
s: Doanh nghip h gia nh siu nh ti Tp HCM, Ngnh Ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).

4.2 Doanh thu ca doanh nghip


Nu xem s bin ng ca doanh nghip l mt trong s nhng nhn t chnh ca tnh
cnh tranh ngnh v tng trng tim nng, phn ny nghin cu k hn v t l doanh
nghip mi thnh lp so vi t l doanh nghip thot khi th trng. Doanh nghip c nng
sut thp c t l tn ti thp hn so vi doanh nghip c hiu qu cao hn, nng cao nng
sut ngnh v tng th (Foster v cng s, 2008). Tng t, cc doanh nghip mi c
thnh lp trong cc ngnh c mi gp phn nng cao tng trng nng sut, trong khi cc
ngnh c, tng trng nng sut c quyt nh bi vic ci thin hiu qu ca cc doanh
nghip v vic thot khi th trng ca cc doanh nghip c (OMahony & Vecchi, 2009).
Hnh 4.2 trnh by doanh thu ca doanh nghip c tnh bng t l doanh nghip mi c
thnh lp v doanh nghip thot khi th trng trn tng s cc doanh nghip, theo ngnh
hot ng. R rng l, so vi cc ngnh khc, ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15) c t l
doanh thu cao nht. Kt qu ny ph hp vi kt qu ca Bng 4.4 vi mc tng trng vic
lm cao nht trong ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15). T l doanh thu cao th hai thuc
ngnh sn phm kim loi c (ISIC 28) v g (ISIC 20), nhng cc ngnh ny khng c
mc tng trng cao trong giai on 2 nm trc.

- 23 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Trong cc chng tip theo, c th d dng nhn thy rng, doanh nghip siu nh l
cc doanh nghip c bin ng nhiu nht xt v t l thnh lp doanh nghip mi v ng
ca doanh nghip c. Hnh 4.2 so snh t l thnh lp v ng ca doanh nghip siu nh
vi tng doanh thu theo ngnh. Cc doanh nghip siu nh cng c tnh trng chung tng
t nh ca ton b mu trong t l doanh nghip mi c thnh lp v thot khi th
trng thp hn t l bnh qun chung cc ngnh may mc (ISIC 18), sn phm khong
phi kim (ISIC 26) v giy (ISIC 21). T l doanh thu ca cc doanh nghip siu nh cao hn
mc trung bnh chung cc ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15), sn phm kim loi c
(ISIC 28) v ch bin g (ISIC 20).
Hnh 4.2: Doanh thu ca doanh nghip theo ngnh
Doanh nghip gia nhp th trng cng doanh nghip thot khi th trng
theo t l s lng doanh nghip
All
Tng cc doanh nghip

Micro
Doanh nghip siu nh

30

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

25
20
15
10
5
0
15

28

20

36

18

26

17

21 29-32 25

19

22

24

27

34

23

Ghi ch: ISIC 15: Ch bin thc phm, ISIC 17: Dt may, ISIC 18: May mc, ISIC 19: Da, ISIC 20: G,
ISIC 21: Giy, ISIC 22: Xut bn, ISIC 24: Sn phm ha cht, ISIC 25: Cc sn phm cao su v nha, ISIC 26:
Sn phm khong phi kim, ISIC 27: Kim loi c bn, ISI 28: Sn phm kim loi c, ISIC 29-32: My mc, ISIC
34: Xe cv ISIC 36: Ni tht.

4.2.1 Doanh nghip gia nhp th trng


Bng 4.6 trnh by doanh nghip mi gia nhp th trng theo a bn v quy m.
Doanh nghip mi c nh ngha l cc doanh nghip mi bt u hot ng trong 2 nm.
Nhn chung, s liu t iu tra nm 2013 cho thy ch c 25 doanh nghip mi bt u kinh
doanh t nm 2011. S lng ny chim 1% tng s doanh nghip c iu tra. Hn mt
na tng s doanh nghip mi l cc c s h gia nh v mt phn ba s doanh nghip mi
l cng ty TNHH. Khng c doanh nghip mi no thuc loi hnh doanh nghip hp danh
hoc tp th.
Tng ng vi cc thng tin v c s h gia nh, phn ln cc doanh nghip mi
thuc nhm cc doanh nghip siu nh, chim 80% tng s (20 doanh nghip). 5 doanh
nghip mi l doanh nghip nh. T l doanh nghip mi cc tnh thnh th cao hn mt
cht - 56% so vi 44% cc tnh nng thn.

- 24 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 4.6: Doanh nghip mi theo a bn, hnh thc s hu php l v quy m
Hnh thc php l

C s h gia nh
T nhn/1 thnh vin
Hp danh/Tp th/Hp tc x
Cng ty TNHH
Cng ty c phn

Quy m

Siu nh
Nh
Va

a bn

Thnh th
Nng thn

Tng s

Khng

Tng s

1.540

14

1.554

(63,2)

(56,0)

(63,1)

197

198

(8,1)

(4,0)

(8,0)

55

55

(2.3)

(0,0)

(2,2)

538

546

(22,1)

(32,0)

(22,2)

107

109

(4.4)

(8,0)

(4,4)

1.744

20

1.764

(71,6)

(80,0)

(71,7)

561

566

(23,0)

(20,0)

(23,0)

132

132

(5,4)

(0,0)

(5,4)

1.048

14

1.062

(43,0)

(56,0)

(43,1)

1.389

11

1.400

(57,0)

(44,0)

(56,9)

2.437

25

2.462

(99,0)

(1,0)

(100,0)

Ghi ch: phn trm trong ngoc n.

4.2.2 Doanh nghip thot khi th trng


Trong phn ny chng ti tm hiu cc nguyn nhn truyn thng tc ng n t l doanh
nghip thot khi th trng. Bng 4.7 trnh by t l doanh nghip thot khi th trng theo
a bn, hnh thc s hu php l v nhm quy m. n nm 2013, gn 18% trong tng s
2.419 doanh nghip c iu tra trong nm 2011 ngng kinh doanh. Con s ny tng ng
vi t l 9,9% doanh nghip thot khi th trng, gn bng mc doanh nghip thot khi th
trng t nm 2009 n 2011. Do nhng t l ny khng da trn s liu doanh nghip thot
khi th trng c xc nhn, ch da trn cc doanh nghip xc nhn thot khi th
trng nn t l doanh nghip thot khi th trng hng nm ch cn 9,3%. T l ny cng
c trnh by trong Chng 2. T l doanh nghip thot khi th trng cc tnh H Ni, Hi
Phng, Khnh Ha, H Ty, Tp HCM v Lm ng cao hn mc bnh qun, cc tnh Qung
Nam v Long An thp hn mc bnh qun. So vi giai on 2009-2011, t l ny tng ln ti
4 tnh l H Ni, H Ty, Hi Phng v Khnh Ha.
Xem xt hnh thc php l, cc doanh nghip h gia nh v sau l cc cng ty c
phn c t l doanh nghip thot khi th trng thp hn so vi cc loi hnh doanh nghip

- 25 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

khc. Nu phn t theo quy m doanh nghip, cc doanh nghip quy m va cng c t l
thot khi th trng thp hn so vi cc doanh nghip nh v siu nh. Kt qu ny ph
hp vi cc nghin cu trc y v cc doanh nghip phi nng nghip ca Vit Nam vi
kt qu l doanh nghip c quy m nh hn c t l tn ti thp hn (Hansen et al., 2009;
Vijverberg & Haughton, 2004).
Nhn chung, ch c 6,6% doanh nghip thot khi th trng thuc cc doanh nghip
xut khu. Phn cui ca Bng 4.7 cho thy mc chnh lch t l doanh nghip thot khi
th trng theo tnh hnh xut khu. C th thy trong s cc doanh nghip xut khu (chim
6% mu), 19% thot khi th trng. Tng ng, c gn 18% doanh nghip khng xut
khu thot khi th trng.
Bng 4.7: T l doanh nghip thot khi th trng theo a bn,
hnh thc s hu php l, quy m v hot ng xut khu
S quan
st

Trung
bnh

SD

Tng s

Tng s

2.419

0,178

0,383

a phng

H Ni

268

0,243

0,429

Ph Th

251

0,167

0,374

H Ty

340

0,188

0,391

Hi Phng

200

0,240

0,428

Ngh An

345

0,122

0,327

Qung Nam

155

0,097

0,297

Khnh Ha

94

0,234

0,426

Lm ng

76

0,237

0,428

Tp HCM

568

0,185

0,389

Long An

122

0,082

0,275

1.571

0,162

0,369

T nhn/1 thnh vin

193

0,202

0,403

Hp danh/Tp th/Hp tc x

65

0,277

0,451

Cng ty TNHH

498

0,207

0,405

Cng ty c phn

92

0,174

0,381

1.660

0,174

0,379

Nh

614

0,192

0,394

Va

145

0,165

0,373

C xut khu

145

0,193

0,396

2.264

0,176

0,381

Hnh thc php l

Quy m

Xut khu

C s h gia nh

Siu nh

Khng xut khu

Ghi ch: cc c tnh t l thot khi th trng trung bnh (phi trng s).

- 26 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Bng 4.8 trnh by t l doanh nghip thot khi th trng theo s nm k t khi doanh
nghip bt u hot ng. d m t, chng ti chia cc doanh nghip thnh 5 nhm trong
nhm u tin bao gm cc doanh nghip hot ng trn 31 nm; nhm th hai bao gm
cc doanh nghip hot ng t 21 n 30 nm; nhm th ba bao gm cc doanh nghip
c thnh lp t 11 n 20 nm; nhm th t bao gm cc doanh nghip hot ng t 6
n 10 nm v nhm th nm bao gm cc doanh nghip mi c nh ngha l cc doanh
nghip mi hot ng c 5 nm hoc t hn. Vic phn loi cc doanh nghip theo cch ny
cho php xc nh c t l doanh nghip thot khi th trng bt thng trong s cc doanh
nghip mi trong 3,9% cc DNNVV thot khi th trng thuc nhm ny. Kt qu ny tri
ngc vi cc bo co hin c cho bit cc doanh nghip tr (c nh ngha l cc doanh
nghip c thi gian hot ng t 1 n 5 nm) c t l tn ti thp hn (Hansen et al., 2009;
Ericson & Pakes, 1995; Jovanovic, 1982). Tuy nhin, cc kt qu ca chng ti c th c
xem l bng chng cho thy quyt tm thnh cng cao hn ca cc doanh nghip mi c
thnh lp trong s nhiu la chn i vi cc ch s hu doanh nghip.
Trong mu ca chng ti, t l thot khi th trng cao nht thuc cc doanh nghip
c thnh lp t 11 n 20 nm. Nhng doanh nghip ny chim gn mt na tng s
doanh nghip thot khi th trng trong mu. Cc doanh nghip kinh doanh t 6 n 10
nm cng c t l thot khi th trng cao. Mt phn t cc doanh nghip thot khi th
trng thuc nhm ny. Bn cnh , cc doanh nghip c thi gian hot ng lu hn c t
l tn ti cao: nhng doanh nghip hot ng trn 30 nm c t l thot khi th trng
thp. Nhn chung, s liu cho thy t l thot khi th trng cao nht thuc cc DNNVV
hot ng kinh doanh t 6 nm tr ln v t l ny gim dn i vi cc doanh nghip
kinh doanh t 21 nm tr ln. Kt qu ny ph hp vi Vijverberg v Haughton (2004) cho
thy cc doanh nghip h gia nh phi nng nghip ti Vit Nam c t l tn ti cao hn
cc doanh nghip c thm nin hot ng ln hn.
Bng 4.8: T l doanh nghip thot khi th trng theo s nm hot ng
Hot ng hn 31 nm
Hot ng t 21 n 30 nm
Hot ng t 11 n 20 nm
Hot ng t 6 n 10 nm

Khng

Tng s

129

32

161

(6,5)

(7,4)

(6,7)

364

76

440

(18,3)

(17,6)

(18,2)

965

202

1,167

(48,5)

(46,8)

(48,2)

477

105

582

(24,0)

(24,3)

(24,0)

54

17

71

(2,7)

(3,9)

(2,9)

1.989

432

2.421

(82,2)

(17,8)

(100,0)

Hot ng t hn 5 nm
Tng s

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

- 27 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Bng 4.9 trnh by s chnh lch t l thot khi th trng theo ngnh. Khng xt n
cc ngnh c t hn 10 quan st, cc doanh nghip ngnh ch bin giy (ISIC 21) c t l
thot khi th trng rt cao, tip theo l cc doanh nghip trong ngnh khong (ISIC 27), da
(ISIC 19), may mc (ISIC 18) v dt (ISIC 17). Cc doanh nghip sn xut cao su v nha
(ISIC 25) c t l thot khi th trng thp nht. Ngoi vic thng k s lng doanh
nghip dng hot ng, doanh thu ca doanh nghip cng c thng k vi cc doanh
nghip chuyn i ngnh ngh. c bit ti cc quc gia ang pht trin, vic chuyn i
ngnh sn xut cng l mt phn chin lc tn ti (Newman et al., 2013). Nhn chung, s
liu cho thy t l doanh nghip chuyn i ngnh l gn 15% trong hai nm qua.
Nh minh ha trong Bng 4.10, c khc bit ln gia cc ngnh trong mu. Ngnh c
nhiu doanh nghip chuyn sang nht l my mc (ISIC 29-32), ni tht (ISIC 36) v kim
loi c bn (ISIC 27). Cc ngnh c t doanh nghip chuyn sang nht l ch bin thc phm
(ISIC 15), sn phm kim loi c (ISIC 28) v xut bn (ISIC 22). Bo co ca Newman,
Rand v Tarp (2013) cho thy cc doanh nghip chuyn i sn xut sang ngnh khc c xu
hng km nng sut v nh hn nhng nhiu lao ng hn so vi cc doanh nghip trong
ngnh sn xut m doanh nghip va chuyn.
Bng 4.9: T l doanh nghip thot khi th trng theo ngnh
S quan
st

Trung
bnh

SD

2.419

0,178

0,383

Tng s
15

Thc phm v ung

734

0,161

0,368

17

Dt

104

0,221

0,417

18

May mc, v.v

121

0,231

0,423

19

Thuc da v da may mc

47

0,234

0,428

20

G v cc sn phm g

248

0,181

0,386

21

Giy v cc sn phm giy

67

0,269

0,447

22

Xut bn, in n, v.v...

59

0,152

0,363

23

Lc du, v.v...

0,143

0,378

24

Sn phm ha hc, v.v...

39

0,179

0,389

25

Sn phm cao su v nha

114

0,105

0,308

26

Sn phm khong phi kim

114

0,228

0,421

27

Kim loi c bn

35

0,171

0,382

28

Sn phm kim loi c

431

0,174

0,379

29-32

My mc

74

0,230

0,423

34

Xe c, v.v...

17

0,176

0,393

35

Thit b vn ti, v.v

0,25

0,463

36

Ni tht

194

0,149

0,357

37

Ti ch

0,167

0,408

Ghi ch: c tnh t l thot khi th trng bnh qun (phi trng s).

- 28 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 4.10: Chuyn i ngnh t nm 2011 n 2013
S
quan st

Phn
trm

Ngnh

Tng s

288

14,5

15

Thc phm v ung

22

1,8

17

Dt

24

14,5

18

May mc, v.v

25

14,0

19

Thuc da v da may mc

12

16,7

20

G v cc sn phm g

94

23,3

21

Giy v cc sn phm giy

24

23,5

22

Xut bn, in n, v.v...

10

10,6

24

Sn phm ha hc, v.v...

13

20,0

25

Sn phm cao su v nha

31

15,3

26

Sn phm khong phi kim

29

16,8

27

Kim loi c bn

25

51,0

28

Sn phm kim loi c

84

11,7

29-32

My mc (bao gm vn phng
+ in t)

26

24,5

34

Xe c, v.v...

10

41,7

36

Ni tht, v.v...

103

31,2

Ghi ch: Chng ti loi cc ngnh c di 15 quan st.

Cc kt qu ny c phn tch r hn trong Bng 4.11 vi cc kt qu v c tnh


probit xc nh xc sut thot khi th trng cc ngnh ch bin Vit Nam c s dng
mi quan h gia a bn, hnh thc s hu, ngnh v quy m.
V cc nhn t quyt nh n vic thot khi th trng, chng ti (nh d kin) thy
c mi quan h ngc chiu gia quy m doanh nghip v t l thot khi th trng. Cc
doanh nghip nh v va c t l thot khi th trng thp hn t 3% n 6% so vi cc
doanh nghip siu nh. Kt qu ny tng ng vi cc kt qu trong hu ht cc nghin cu
v s bin ng ca doanh nghip. Tc ng khng c xc nh r rng trong ct u tin
vi cc doanh nghip nh nhng tc ng ny c xc nh r hn khi cc bin gi c
a vo ct hai.

- 29 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 4.11: Cc nhn t quyt nh doanh nghip thot khi th trng
Thot (khng c bin ngnh)
Tc ng bin

z-stat

Tc ng bin

z-stat

-0,030

(-1,49)

-0,035*

(-1,76)

-0,060**

(-2,03)

-0,072**

(-2,57)

H Ni

0,047

(1,57)

0,057*

(1,83)

Ph Th

-0,012

(-0,40)

-0,019

(-0,65)

H Ty

0,013

(0,47)

0,001

(0,03)

Hi Phng

0,050

(1,47)

0,048

(1,39)

Ngh An

-0,058**

(-2,52)

-0,063***

(-2,70)

Qung Nam

-0,084***

(-3,13)

-0,086***

(-3,23)

Khnh Ha

0,050

(1,10)

0,047

(1,02)

Lm ng

0,054

(1,06)

0,054

(1,05)

-0,100***

(-3,67)

-0,102***

(-3,83)

T nhn/1 thnh vin

0,044

(1,30)

0,047

(1,39)

Hp danh/Tp
th/Hp tc x

0,109*

(1,80)

0,118*

(1,89)

Cng ty TNHH

0,051*

(1,96)

0,050*

(1,90)

Cng ty c phn

0,027

(0,54)

0,022

(0,45)

Quy m doanh nghip Nh


Va
a bn

Long An
Hnh thc s hu

Thot (c bin ngnh)

C bin gi ngnh

Khng

S quan st

2.419

2.419

Pseudo R-squared

0.02

0,03

Ghi ch: Probit, tc ng bin. Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi ln 10%, 5% v 1%. C s: HCMC,
Doanh nghip h gia nh, Ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).

Xem xt cc yu t khc, chng ti thy a bn cng l nhn t quan trng tc ng


n doanh nghip thot khi th trng. Xc sut doanh nghip thot khi th trng cao
nht ti H Ni, c th thy c do sc p cnh tranh cao. Cc nghin cu trc y v
DNNVV ti Vit Nam (Hansen et al., 2009) cng cho thy mc cnh tranh cao hn khu
vc thnh th. Cc khu vc khc c t l thot khi th trng tng t vi Tp H Ch Minh
tr Ngh An, Qung Nam v Long An vi t l thot khi th trng thp hn nhiu. Cui
cng, hnh thc s hu php l cng l mt nhn t quan trng tc ng n doanh nghip
thot khi th trng. Doanh nghip hp danh v cng ty TNHH c t l thot khi th
trng cao hn so vi doanh nghip h gia nh c tnh n s khc bit v quy m. So vi
ngnh c s (ch bin thc phm), t l thot khi th trng cao hn ngnh sn xut sn
phm khong phi kim (ISIC 26) v thp hn ngnh ch bin cao su (ISIC 25) khi c nh
quy m, a bn, v hnh thc s hu php l (khng bo co). Tuy nhin, cn lu l cc
yu t quyt nh c tnh truyn thng ny ch gii thch c 2%-3% s khc bit v t l
thot khi th trng.

- 30 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

S liu t iu tra 2013 cho thy t nm 2011 n 2013, 356 DNNVV ngng hot
ng trong thi gian n mt nm t nm 2011-2013. Con s ny cao hn mt cht (5%) so
vi nm 2011 vi 339 doanh nghip cho bit tm dng hot ng trong giai on hai nm
trc. Trong nm 2011, ch c 17 doanh nghip tm ngng kinh doanh k t nm 2009 vi
chin lc i ph vi khng hong kinh t (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012).
Tuy nhin, c ti 124 doanh nghip thc hin chin lc ny trong nm 2011 n 2013. Cc
doanh nghip ngng hot ng ngn hn v cc nguyn nhn khc ngoi khng hong ti
chnh ton cu v Hnh 4.3 m t chi tit.
Hnh 4.3: Nguyn nhn tm ng ca (phn trm)

Thiu cu/n hng

40

30
15

Mt phn ca chu k kinh doanh thng thng


Khc

24
23

26

8
7

Cnh tranh cao


3

Chi ph sn xut qu cao

2
5

Kh khn trong mua nguyn liu th


Sn phm cht lng thp

3
3

Thiu lao ng c tay ngh

1
2

Sn phm tr nn lc hu

1
1
0

2013
10

20

30

2011
40

50

Nguyn nhn chnh ca vic tm ngng hot ng trong giai on 2011-2013 l thiu
cu. Nguyn nhn ny cng r hn trong nm 2013 vi hn 10% doanh nghip tng ln so
vi giai on 2009-2011. Thiu cu cng l nguyn nhn chnh ca vic tm ngng hot
ng trong giai on 2007-2009 (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). Trong Phn 10, chng ti
trnh by t l cc doanh nghip c tn kho hng ha kh bn, xc thc vic p ng tr nhu
cu thc ca th trng. Gn mt phn t cc DNNVV xem vic tm ngng hot ng trong
ngn hn l mt phn ca chu k kinh doanh trong vng iu tra trc, tuy nhin t l ny
gim xung cn 15% trong s liu nm 2013. Sc p cnh tranh v hn ch ngun lc l
nguyn nhn dn n t l doanh nghip tm dng hot ng thp hn nhiu. ng lu l
gn mt phn t s doanh nghip tm dng hot ng mt giai on m khng v nguyn
nhn no (xem nhm Khc).

- 31 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Cc doanh nghip tm dng hot ng ch yu l doanh nghip siu nh v nh, tng


ng chim n 83% v 16%. Bng 4.12 cho thy cc doanh nghip h gia nh c t l tm
dng kinh doanh cao nht trong giai on 2011-2013. T l cao th hai thuc v cc cng ty
TNHH. Cng ty c phn c t l thp nht.
Bng 4.12: Tm ng ca theo hnh thc php l
Hnh thc php l
C s h gia nh
T nhn/1 thnh vin
Hp danh/Tp th/Hp tc x
Cng ty TNHH
Cng ty c phn
Tng s

Tm ng ca
Khng
C
Tng s
1.042

262

1.304

(62,8)

(73,6)

(64,7)

125

30

155

(7,5)

(8,4)

(7,7)

45

51

(2,7)

(1,7)

(2,5)

367

55

422

(22,1)

(15,5)

(20,9)

81

84

(4,9)

(0,8)

(4,2)

1.660

356

2.016

(100,0)

(100,0)

(100,0)

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

Cc doanh nghip tm ng ca c t l thot khi th trng cao hn, nh minh ha


trong Bng 4.13. c bit i vi cc doanh nghip siu nh v nh, t l ny l 70 v 27%
sau khi tm ng ca. Doanh nghip quy m va c t l tm ng ca v ngng hot ng
thp nht cho thy li th r rng v quy m i vi s tn ti ca doanh nghip trong mi
trng kinh doanh cnh tranh. V hnh thc s hu, doanh nghip h gia nh c t l thot
khi th trng cao hn sau khi dng kinh doanh. Cng ty TNHH l loi hnh doanh nghip
c t l thot khi th trng cao th hai sau khi tm dng ng ca. Cng ty hp danh v
cc loi hnh s hu tp th khc c t l thot khi th trng thp nht sau khi tm dng
ng ca. Tnh trng ca cc doanh nghip cng khc nhau theo a bn. Cc doanh nghip
khu vc thnh th c t l thot khi th trng thp hn sau khi ng ca. Khong 43%
doanh nghip thnh th thot khi th trng sau khi ng ca trong khi t l ny vi doanh
nghip nng thn l 57%.
Cc doanh nghip tm ng ca nhng c hot ng trong vng iu tra 2013 c mc
tng trng vic lm bng vi cc doanh nghip vn hot ng trong giai on khng hong
quc t. Cc doanh nghip tm dng hot ng nhng vn tn ti c mc tng trng vic
lm cao hn 2% trong giai on 2011-2013 so vi cc doanh nghip vn hot ng trong
giai on khng hong (khng bo co)

- 32 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 4.13: Tm ng ca nm 2011 v thot khi th trng nm 2013
Tm ng ca trong nm 2011
Tt c
Quy m

Siu nh (<10)
Nh (10-49)
Va (50-300)

Hnh thc php l C s h gia nh


T nhn/1 thnh vin
Hp danh/Tp th/Hp tc x
Cng ty TNHH
Cng ty c phn
a bn

Nng thn
Thnh th

Thot 2013
Khng
C
258
81
(15,7)
(23,6)
199
57
(77,1)
(70,4)
52
22
(20,2)
(27,2)
7
2
(2,7)
(2,5)
193
57
(74,8)
(70,4)
19
6
(7,4)
(7,4)
11
2
(4,3)
(2,5)
32
13
(12,4)
(16,1)
3
3
(1,2)
(3,7)
176
46
(68,2)
(56,8)
82
35
(31,8)
(43,2)

Tng s
339
(17,1)
256
(75,5)
74
(21,8)
9
(2,7)
250
(73,8)
25
(7,4)
13
(3,8)
45
(13,3)
6
(1,8)
222
(65,5)
117
(34,5)

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

Tip theo chng ti xem xt liu cc doanh nghip tm dng hot ng c xu hng
thay i sn phm kinh doanh. o lng ny c thc hin cp ngnh (ISIC cp 2 s).
Bng 4.14 cho thy cc doanh nghip tm dng kinh doanh thng chuyn sang ngnh sn
xut khc. T l cc doanh nghip chuyn ngnh trong s cc doanh nghip tm dng kinh
doanh l khong 3% cao hn so vi trung bnh ca mu (17,6% ca cc doanh nghip tm
dng kinh doanh so vi 14,5% trung bnh mu).
Cc doanh nghip tm dng kinh doanh c xu hng chuyn ngnh sn xut cao hn so
vi cc doanh nghip khng tm dng kinh doanh. Khong 19% doanh nghip chuyn ngnh
sau khi tm ng ca trong khi ch c 17% doanh nghip khng tm ng ca chuyn ngnh.
Bn cnh , ch c 2 doanh nghip thay i ngnh ng ca hot ng k t nm 2011.
Bng 4.14: Tm ng ca v thay i ngnh
Tm ng ca trong nm 2011
Khng
C
Tng s

Chuyn ngnh
Khng
C
1.405
294
(82,7) (17,3)
232
56
(80,6) (19,4)
1.637
350
(82,4) (17,6)

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n

- 33 -

Tng s
1.699
(100,0)
288
(100,0)
1.987
(100,0)

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

QUAN LIU, PHI CHNH THC V CC CHI PH CHNH THC

Khng th nghin cu v s pht trin ca khu vc t nhn v mi trng kinh doanh


ti cc nc ang pht trin m khng xem xt v tnh phi chnh thc trong kinh doanh, quy
nh, thu v tham nhng. Chi ph thnh lp doanh nghip chnh thc cao, yu cu tun th
lut php v thu cao dn n doanh nghip khi nghip bng hnh thc phi chnh thc nh
cp trn nhm gim chi ph hot ng. Kh nng ca cc doanh nghip trong vic
gim hoc trnh cc chi ph ny lin quan n vic hi l quan chc nh nc. Tham nhng
c th cng tn ti do cc quan chc nh nc li dng cng vic bn rt tin ca t
nhn thng qua cc vi phm do h tng tng hoc c nhng din gii khng chun v
php lut. Nhng vn v b my quan liu phi chnh thc, h thng thu v tham nhng
c nhng tc ng khc nhau n nhiu doanh nghip, c bit n c cu php l ca
doanh nghip.

5.1 Phi chnh thc, tng trng v thot khi th trng


Xc nh tnh phi chnh thc l mt thch thc. Trong chng ny chng ti xem xt
mt nh ngha v tnh chnh thc trong cc doanh nghip c M s doanh nghip (ECN)
hoc cc doanh nghip c c Giy chng nhn ng k kinh doanh (BRC) v m s thu.
Nh vy chng ti cho php kh nng doanh nghip hot ng mt cch chnh thc ngay c
khi doanh nghip ch thu lao ng khng chnh thc (lao ng khng c hp ng). Bng
5.1 trnh by s liu thng k tm tt theo nh ngha trn trong nm 2011 v nm 2013.
Bng 5.1: Thng k tm tt tnh chnh thc
2011

2013

Phn
trm

S lng

Phn
trm

S lng

Chnh thc (Tng s)

72,7

1.759

71,4

1.757

Chnh thc (Cn bng)

71,9

1.430

72,2

1.453

Ghi ch: nh ngha chnh thc: Doanh nghip c ECN hoc BRC v m s thu.

Theo nh ngha ca chng ti, trong nm 2011, 71% doanh nghip c iu tra l
cc doanh nghip chnh thc trong nm 2013. T l ny khng chnh lch nhiu so vi nm
2011. Tr hai doanh nghip t nhn v mt cng ty c phn, tt c cc doanh nghip khng
ng k kinh doanh l cc doanh nghip h gia nh.
Bng 5.2 trnh by s bin ng tnh chnh thc khi s dng ma trn chuyn dch
truyn thng. u tin, 9,8% s doanh nghip phi chnh thc nm 2011 c giy chng
nhn ng k kinh doanh vo nm 2013. Bn cnh , ch c 0,2% s doanh nghip chnh
thc ng k trong nm 2011 khng c giy ng k kinh doanh chnh thc trong nm 2013.
Cc con s ny cho thy th tc ng k (v kin thc v lnh vc ny) c ci thin
ng k k t vng iu tra trc.

- 34 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 5.2: Ma trn chuyn dch tnh chnh thc
ECN hoc BRC + M s thu
Khng chnh
thc 2013

Chnh
thc 2013

Tng s

Phn
trm

551

60

611

(30,7)

(90,2)

(9,8)

(100,0)

1.375

1.377

(0,2)

(99,8)

(100,0)

553

1.435

1.988

(27,8)

(72.2)

(100.0)

Khng chnh thc 2011


Chnh thc 2011
Tng s
Phn trm

(69,3)
(100,0)

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

By gi chng ti xem xt mi quan h gia tnh chnh thc vi tng trng doanh
nghip v xc sut thot khi th trng4. Bng 5.3 trnh by kt qu o lng v tnh chnh
thc v cc bin gii thch. Th nht, c lng ch s dng ln trong hm tng trng cho
thy vic tr thnh doanh nghip chnh thc i km vi t l tng trng vic lm cao hn,
ph hp vi cc kt qu trong nghin cu ca Rand v Torm (2012). ng thi, cc c tnh
probit cng cho thy mi quan h tng quan dng (thun chiu) c ngha thng k ln
gia xc sut thot khi th trng v doanh nghip c ng k kinh doanh chnh thc (ct 3
v 4). Pht hin ny ngc vi cc vng iu tra trc trong cho thy khng c mi quan
h ng k no gia tnh chnh thc v xc sut thot khi th trng (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA
v UNU-WIDER, 2012).
Bng 5.3: Bin ng ca doanh nghip v tnh chnh thc
Tng trng doanh nghip

Doanh nghip thot khi


th trng

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

-0,082***

-0,092***

-0,010

0,027***

(-13,22)

(-13,12)

(-1,35)

(-3,24)

0,072***

0,062***

0,050***

0,049**

(4,45)

(3,40)

(2,77)

(2,43)

C bin gi a bn

Khng

Khng

C bin gi ngnh

Khng

Khng

S quan st

1.988

1.988

2.419

2.419

Pseudo R-squared

0,09

0,12

0,00

0,03

Quy m doanh nghip

ng k kinh doanh

log (s lao ng)

Chnh thc = 1

Note: OLS v probit, tc ng bin.t-statistics trong ngoc n. Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi
ln 10%, 5% v 1%. C s: Doanh nghip siu nh, ch bin thc phm, Tp HCM (ISIC 15).

Phn tch chi tit hn bng s liu nm 2007 v 2009 v tc ng ca tnh khng chnh thc (v thay i t
khng chnh thc sang chnh thc) c trong bo co ca Rand v Tom (2012).

- 35 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

5.2 Thu v cc chi ph phi chnh thc


Theo iu tra hot ng kinh doanh ca Ngn hng th gii (World Bank & IFC,
2013), iu tra nh gi Mi trng u t (World Bank, 2011) v Ch s Cnh tranh cp
tnh Vit Nam (Malesky, 2013), mc thun li trong hot ng kinh doanh ti Vit
Nam c ci thin ng k trong cc nm qua. Tuy nhin, vn cn nhng vn ng
quan tm lin quan n cc chi ph phi chnh thc m doanh nghip phi i mt cng nh
gnh nng hnh chnh v vic np thu. Mc cui cng ny tip tc phn tng quan ca cc
cuc iu tra trc v gnh nng thu v cc chi ph phi chnh thc i vi cc doanh
nghip ch bin Vit Nam cung cp ci nhn r nt hn v nhng ci tin.
Bng 5.4 nghin cu s thay i t l li nhun thun trn tng li nhun nhm a ra
mt ch s v lng thu m cc doanh nghip phi ng trong giai on 2011-2013. Kt
qu cho thy, cc doanh nghip h gia nh khng ng gp y cho h thng thu. T l
li nhun thun trn tng li nhun l khong 92% trong nm 2011 v 93% trong nm 2013
i vi cc doanh nghip h gia nh. T l doanh nghip h gia nh khng ng thu tng
nh t 11% trong nm 2011 ln 11.8% trong nm 2013. Cn lu rng hu ht cc doanh
nghip khng ng thu l cc doanh nghip h gia nh phi chnh thc trong nm 2011.
Bng 5.4: T l li nhun thun trn tng li nhun
Li nhun thun/
Tng li nhun
T l

T l khng
ng thu

2011

2013

2011

2013

Tng s

0,841

0,856

0,074

0,080

C s h gia nh

0,921

0,933

0,110

0,118

T nhn/1 thnh vin

0,736

0,741

0,000

0,000

Hp danh/tp th/hp tc x

0,695

0,687

0,000

0,043

Cng ty TNHH

0,669

0,702

0,000

0,000

Cng ty c phn

0,624

0,681

0,000

0,000

Tnh phi chnh thc v thu c lin quan cht ch vi hot ng hi l v tham nhng
v l cc nhn t chnh trong mi trng kinh doanh ca mt quc gia. Do , cc phn tch
ch trng vo cc khon chi phi chnh thc m theo quan im ca doanh nghip th nhng
khon chi ny c xem l mt loi chi ph thng xuyn trong cc chi ph hot ng. Cc
khon chi phi chnh thc c th c a ra i li dch v no m quan chc nh
nc cung cp. V vy, vn ny c xc nh da trn cc cu hi sau trong phiu iu
tra: (i) c bao nhiu doanh nghip c cc khon chi phi chnh thc, (ii) ti sao li thc hin
cc khon chi ny, v (iii) cc khon chi ny thay i nh th no theo thi gian? Bng 5.5
cho thy 45% s doanh nghip c cc khon chi phi chnh thc trong nm 2011trong khi t
l ny l 38% trong nm 2011. So snh thng tin ny vi cc vng iu tra trc, chng ti
kt lun l s lng doanh nghip chi hi l tng ln k t nm 2007. Ch yu cc doanh

- 36 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

nghip chnh thc chi hi l. iu ny cng c khng nh trong nghin cu chi tit hn
ca Rand v Tarp (2012) cho thy gi thuyt hi l che giu khng c khng nh
bng vic s dng s liu ca Vit Nam. Bn cnh , ngay c trong mu lp li chng ti
cng thy xu hng tng t nh trong ton b mu cho thy p lc cao v vic chi cc
khon chi khng chnh thc trong mi trng kinh doanh Vit Nam.
Bng 5.5: Bao nhiu doanh nghip chi hi l?
Tng s

Mu lp li

2011

2013

2011

2013

926

1.108

742

891

(38,3)

(45,0)

(37,3)

(44,8)

812

948

640

771

(47,8)

(54,0)

(46,5)

(53,7)

114

160

102

120

(15,8)

(22,7)

(16,9)

(21,7)

Doanh nghip chi hi l


Chnh thc
Phi chnh thc

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

Bng 5.6 trnh by ma trn chuyn dch hi l cho thy 38,5% doanh nghip khng chi
hi l trong nm 2011 chi hi l trong nm 2013. Tng t, 40% doanh nghip chi cc
chi ph khng chnh thc trong nm 2011 khng chi hi l trong nm 2013. Ch c 445 trong
s 1.998 doanh nghip cho chi hi l trong c nm 2011 v 2013, lm t l doanh nghip chi
hi l tng 5 im phn trm.
Bng 5.6: Nhng thay i theo thi gian trong vic chi hi l
Khng hi l
2013

C hi l
2013

Tng
s

Phn
trm

800

446

1.246

(62,7)

(64,2)

(35,8)

(100,0)

297

445

742

(40,0)

(60,0)

(100,0)

Tng s

1.097

891

1.988

Phn trm

(55,2)

(44,8)

(100,0)

Khng hi l 2011
C hi l 2011

(37,3)

(100,0)

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

Hnh 5.1 cho thy 30% s doanh nghip thc hin cc khon thanh ton khng chnh
thc i ph vi cc c quan thu trong nm 2011. T l ny gim xung cn 19% trong
nm 2013. Gn 29% cc khon chi phi chnh thc c lin quan n dch v cng (tng ln so
vi t l 26% trong nm 2011).

- 37 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Hnh 5.1: Khon chi hi l c dng lm g?
2013

2011

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
c dch v
cng

c giy
i ph
c hp
php
vi thu v c ng vi nh
quan thu
nc

i ph
vi khch
hng

Khc

Cui cng, quay v cu hi nhng doanh nghip ch bin no chi hi l, Bng 5.7
trnh by cc kt qu c c t vic c lng m hnh probit tng hp s dng cc yu t
c m t trc y v c hai bin ch dn cho ng k doanh nghip chnh thc. Cc
ct 1 v 2 s dng ton b b s liu trong khi ct 3 v 4 bo co kt qu ca mu lp li.
Ct 5 bo co kt qu cc tc ng c nh (m hnh xc sut tuyn). Kt qu cho thy cc
doanh nghip ln c xc sut chi hi l cao hn khong 11-12%% so vi cc doanh nghip
siu nh. Doanh nghip c ng k c mi tng quan thun chiu v cht ch vi vic chi
hi l, khng nh cc kt qu trong Rand v Tarp (2012). Cc doanh nghip c ng k c
xc sut chi hi h cao hn 20% so vi cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc. Cc c tnh tc
ng c nh cho thy quy m tc ng nh hn nhng theo hng khng i v mi tng
quan gia cc bin. Cc doanh nghip ti min Nam c t l chi hi l cao hn so vi cc
doanh nghip cng c tnh ti min Bc (khng a vo bng).
Bng 5.7: Cc yu t quyt nh vic hi l: Nghi vn thng thng

Quy m doanh nghip ln


(s lng lao ng)
ng k

(C ng k = 1)

Bin gi a bn
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
Pseudo R-squared

Tng s
(1)
0,115***

Tng s
(2)
0,116***

Lp li
(3)
0,125***

Lp li
(4)
0,126***

FE
(5)
0,082***

(14,83)
0,200***
(11,59)
Khng
Khng
4.880
0,11

(14,21)
0,225***
(11,84)
C
C
4.880
0,12

(14,47)
0,184***
(9,57)
Khng
Khng
3.976
0,11

(13,94)
0,203***
(9,61)
C
C
3.976
0,12

(3,21)
0,124
(1,60)
,,
,,
3.976 (1.988)
,,

Ghi ch: Pooled probit + Tc ng c nh (LPM). t-statistics trong ngoc n. Sai s chun gp . *, ** v ***
tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. C s: Tp HCM, Ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).

- 38 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Cui cng, Bng 5.8 nghin cu mi quan h gia hi l v mt s ch tiu v bin


ng ca doanh nghip: tng trng vic lm v doanh nghip thot khi th trng. Cc
doanh nghip chi hi l khng m rng lc lng lao ng ca mnh nhiu hn so vi cc
doanh nghip khng chi hi l. Bn cnh , kt qu cho thy cc doanh nghip chi hi l
c xc sut thot khi th trng cao hn 3%.
Bng 5.8: Cc khon chi khng chnh thc v bin ng doanh nghip
Tng trng vic lm
Coef

t-stat

Thot khi th trng

Coef

t-stat

Quy m
-0,082*** (-13,08) -0,090*** (-13,30)
(s lng lao ng)

Coef

t-stat

-0,012

Coef

t-stat

(-1,54) -0,024***

(-2,87)

ng k (C=1)

0,072***

(4,43)

0,061***

(3,36)

0,044**

(2,37)

0,045**

(2,21)

Doanh nghip chi


hi l (C=1)

-0,004

(-0,34)

-0,006

(-0,43)

0,028

(1,62)

0,031*

(1,83)

Thnh th (C=1)

0,017

(1,14)

0,069***

(3,71)

Nng thn (C=1)

0,013

(0,97)

-0,043**

(-2,57)

Bin gi ngnh

Khng

Khng

S quan st

1.988

1.988

2.419

2.419

Pseudo R-squared

0,09

0,11

0,00

0,02

Ghi ch: OLS vProbit. Sai s chun gp . *, ** v *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. C s: Ch bin thc
phm (ISIC 15).

- 39 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

U T V TIP CN TI CHNH

Kh khn trong th trng tn dng c cc doanh nghip xem nh ro cn ln nht


i vi s pht trin ca cc DNNVV ti Vit Nam. Do vy phn ny xem xt cc c im
u t ca cc doanh nghip c iu tra v c cc vn v tip cn tn dng chnh thc
v phi chnh thc ca doanh nghip ti Vit Nam. phn tch s bin ng u t v kh
khn v tn dng theo thi gian, b s liu ca mu lp li t nm 2011 v 2013 c s
dng cho nhiu phn tch

6.1 u t
Bng 6.1 trnh by t l doanh nghip c thc hin u t t thi im iu tra trc,
theo quy m doanh nghip, c cu php l v a bn. Trong nm 2011, 56% ca 2.416
doanh nghip c thc hin u t so vi t l 47% trong nm 2013. Xu hng thc hin u
t mi tng ln theo quy m doanh nghip. Mc d c gn 50% s doanh nghip siu nh
thc hin u t trong nm 2011, t l ny gim 10% trong nm 2013. T l doanh nghip
khng phi h gia nh thc hin u t ln hn so vi cc doanh nghip h gia nh trong
c hai nm. Cui cng, cc doanh nghip ti cc tnh nng thn v min Bc thng xuyn
u t hn so vi cc doanh nghip ti khu vc thnh th v ti min Nam. Trong khi t l
li sut thp l ng lc cho t l u t cao hn, cu thp li cn tr tc ng tch cc ca
tn dng tip cn c. iu ny c th gii thch t l u t thp hn trong nm 2013 so
vi nm 2011.
Bng 6.1: u t mi
2011
S quan st

2013
T l

S quan st

T l

Tng s

2.416

0,562

2.461

0,470

Siu nh

1.658

0,498

1.763

0,395

Nh

613

0,674

566

0,629

Va

145

0,821

132

0,788

1.569

0,505

1.553

0,405

847

0,666

908

0,582

Thnh th

1.035

0,529

1.062

0,373

Nng thn

1.381

0,587

1.399

0,544

Min Nam

1.014

0,454

1.059

0,410

Min Bc

1.402

0,640

1.402

0,516

Doanh nghip h gia nh


Doanh nghip phi h gia nh

Bng 6.2 nghin cu tnh hnh u t ca cc DNNVV Vit Nam. Gn 60% doanh
nghip c u t mi trong c hai nm 2011 v 2013. Chnh lch v s lng cc doanh
nghip khng u t v s lng cc doanh nghip c u t trong c hai nm khng ln: c
587 doanh nghip khng u t trong 4 nm qua, 675 doanh nghip c u t trong c hai
nm. Gn 30% doanh nghip khng u t trong nm 2011 c u t trong nm 2013, gim
10% so vi bo co trc y (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012). iu ny cho
thy phn ln cc DNNVV c u t trong giai on nm nm.

- 40 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 6.2: Tnh hnh u t (Ma trn chuyn dch u t)
Chuyn dch u t
Khng 2013

C 2013

Tng s

Phn trm

587

251

838

(42,2)

(70,1)

(29,9)

(100,0)

472

675

1,147

(41,2)

(58,8)

(100,0)

Tng s

1.059

926

1.985

Phn trm

(53,4)

(46,6)

(100,0)

Khng 2011
C 2011

(57,8)
(100,0)

Ghi ch: Thiu 3 quan st trong nm 2011 do bo co nhm.

Bng 6.3 quan st mi tng quan gia xc sut u t v cc nhn t nh hng


truyn thng. C th thy cc doanh nghip ln hn c xc sut thc hin u t mi cao
hn so vi cc doanh nghip nh hn khi c nh bin v hnh thc s hu php l, a bn
v ngnh. c tnh gim xung cn 1/3 quy m khi c nh cc c im ca doanh nghip
khng c iu tra nhng vn c gi tr thng k ln. Bng cng cho thy cc doanh
nghip h gia nh thng t u t mi hn so vi cc loi hnh doanh nghip khc. Cc
doanh nghip thnh th ti min Nam c xc sut u t cao hn ng k so vi cc doanh
nghip min Bc v doanh nghip nng thn. iu ny khng nh quan st ban u c
trnh by trong Bng 6.1. Trong bng, bin gi thi gian c gi tr m v c lp vi mu
(ton b mu v mu lp li) hoc la chn ch s c lng (c lng Probit tng hp
hoc m hnh xc sut tuyn tc ng c nh), khng nh t l cc doanh nghip c thc
hin u t mi trong nm 2013 gim so vi nm 2011.
Bng 6.3: Cc c im u t

Quy m (log s lng lao ng)


DN h gia nh (ng=1)
Thnh th (ng=1)
Min Nam (ng=1)
Bin gi nm
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
Pseudo R-squared

Tng s
Coef
t-stat
0,148*** (15,11)
-0,040*
(-1,85)
-0,210*** (-12,02)
-0,157*** (-9,99)
-0,089*** (-5,96)
C
4.877
0,11

Lp li
Coef
t-stat
0,156***
(14,26)
-0,033
(-1,38)
-0,225***
(-11,50)
-0,158***
(-9,01)
-0,112***
(-6,77)
C
3.973
0,12

FE
Coef
0,050**

t-stat
(2,04)

-0,105*** (-7,74)
C
3.973
0,05

Ghi ch: Probit + Tc ng c nh (M hnh xc sut tuyn). Sai s chun gp: *, ** v *** tng ng vi mc ngha
10%, 5% v 1%. C s: Ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).

Hnh 6.1 trnh by ngun ngn sch ca cc khon u t mi. Bnh qun, u t t li
nhun gi li nm 2013 gim so vi nm 2011. S liu iu tra nm 2011 cho thy li nhun
gi li l ngun ngn sch chnh cho 46% u t mi trong giai on 2009-2011. Ngc li,
ch khong 34% u t mi c ngun ngn sch t vn t c trong hai nm qua. T l u t
c ngn sch t tn dng chnh thc tng t 45% ln 52% trong cng k. y c th l kt
qu ca vic t l li sut gim mt cht vi tn dng chnh thc v ngun lc doanh nghip
gim sau mt s nm khng hong kinh t. S liu cho thy t l li sut bnh qun hng

- 41 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

thng t ngun vay chnh thc gim t 1,7% trong nm 2011 xung 1,2% trong nm 2013.
ng thi, gi tr thc ca tng ti sn cng gim nh t 1,7 t ng nm 2009 xung cn
1,1 t ng nm 2012 (gi tr c quy theo gi tr nm gc 1994). T l u t c ngn sch
t cc ngun phi chnh thc (v d, vay ngi thn v gia nh khng phi tr li) cng tng
t 8% trong nm 2011 ln 14% trong nm 2013. Nu trong nm 2009-2011, tm quan trng
ca ngun ngn sch phi chnh thc i vi u t mi gim xung th s liu cp nht nht
phn nh iu ngc li. Nhn chung, ngn sch phi chnh thc khng ng vai tr ch cht
trong nhu cu tn dng t bn ngoi ca cc DNNVV.
Hnh 6.1: u t c ngn sch t u?
60
50
40
30
20
2011
10

2013

0
Vn t c

Vay ngn hng


hoc cc ngun
vay chnh thc
khc

Vay khng chnh


thc

Khc

Bng 6.4 xem xt tng mu cc khon u t nm 2013 vi kt qu l mc tng nh v


t l bnh qun u t c ngun vn t li nhun gi linu so snh vi mu cn bng trong
Hnh 6.1.
Bng 6.4: Ngun ti chnh u t, theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn

Tng s
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Doanh nghip h gia nh
Doanh nghip phi h gia nh
Thnh th
Nng thn
Min Nam
Min Bc

Li nhun gi li
Phn trm
34,5
38,8
28,3
26,7
41,0
26,8
30,8
36,4
31,9
36,1

Vay chnh thc


Phn trm
51,8
44,5
61,3
69,0
43,5
61,8
50,3
52,6
53,8
50,7

Vay khng chnh thc


Phn trm
13,7
16,7
10,4
4,3
15,5
11,4
18,9
11,0
14,3
13,2

Ghi ch: Tng mu 2013. 1.156 quan st. Cc khon vay ti chnh chnh thc c tnh l s d.

- 42 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

S liu cha tng hp cho thy cc doanh nghip siu nh c t l u t t ngun li


nhun gi li hoc ngun vay khng chnh thc cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip ln hn
trong khi cc doanh nghip khc ph thuc nhiu vo cc ngun vay chnh thc. Doanh
nghip h gia nh cng c xu hng nh cc doanh nghip siu nh, trong khi cc doanh
nghip phi h gia nh tun theo xu hng ca cc doanh nghip ln hn. Doanh nghip
khu vc thnh th v min Nam c xu hng s dng ngun vay chnh thc u t.
Hnh 6.2 trnh by ngun gc ngn sch u t s dng t l gi tr u t trong tng
th u t ca doanh nghip. Tt c s liu u thuc mu lp li nhng kt qu khng thay
i ng k khi xem xt ton b mu cho c nm 2011 v 2013 (khng bo co). S liu cho
thy u t vo t ai gim 1% t nm 2011 n nm 2013. Tuy nhin, trong nm 2013, t
l u t vo a c, thit b v my mc tng ln v gi tr so vi nm 2011.
u t mi vo thit b v my mc tng t 9% ln 11% trong khi u t mi vo a
c tng t 26% trong nm 2011 ln 28% trong nm 2013. Nhm khc bao gm u t vo
nghin cu v pht trin, nng cp vn con ngi, bng sng ch, cc doanh nghip khc v
cc nhm khc. Khong 60% cc doanh nghip thc hin u t trong nhm ny, tuy
nhin, ch c 1% doanh nghip u t vo nghin cu v pht trin, nng cp vn con ngi,
bng sng ch v cc doanh nghip khc, cn 59% doanh nghip khng c gii thch.
Hnh 6.2: Chi tit u t 2011-13 (%)
2011

2013

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
t ai

Thit b v my mc

a c

Khc

Hnh 6.3 so snh mc ch u t ca doanh nghip trong nm 2011 v 2013. u t


ch yu c thc hin nhm nng cao cng sut sn xut v c mc tng t 28% trong nm
2011 ln 63% trong nm 2013. Mc ch u t quan trng th hai l thay th thit b c,
vi t l tng ln trong hai nm qua. Mc ch u t ln th ba l nng cao nng sut. Nm
2013 nhiu u t hn c thc hin vi mc ch sn xut u ra mi so vi nm 2011
trong khi cc doanh nghip c iu tra u cho bit u t cho nng cao cht lng, m
bo an ton v p ng cc yu cu v mi trng vn l th yu.

- 43 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Hnh 6.3: Chi tit u t 2011-2003 (phn trm)
2011

70

2013

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
B sung Thay th Ci tin Nng cao Sn xut
cng sut thit b c nng sut cht lng sn phm
u ra
mi

An ton

Yu cu
mi trng

Khc

Bc tranh u t ca cc DNNVV Vit Nam khng th c tm hiu ton din nu


thiu thng tin v cc iu kin th trng hin ti, c bit l th trng tn dng v t l li
sut. Do vy, chng ti dnh nhng vn ny trong phn tip theo.

6.2 Tn dng
Tng t cc iu tra DNNVV trc (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012;
CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010; Rand et al., 2008), t l n ca cc doanh nghip Vit Nam l rt
thp, nguyn nhn chnh c th l do hn ch thanh khon v hn ch trong tip cn ti
chnh (Rand, 2007). Tuy nhin, t l n thp so vi ti sn ca cc DNNVV Vit Nam ph
hp vi kt qu l phn ln u t c ngun gc t li nhun gi li. S lng doanh nghip
np h s xin vay v c c cc khon vay ngn hng chnh thc hoc cc hnh thc tn
dng khc trong 2 nm qua c trnh by trong Bng 6.5 cho ton b mu v mu lp li.
Trong nm 2013, 26% (29% trong nm 2011) doanh nghip np h s xin vay chnh thc v
24% (28% trong nm 2011) c kh khn trong vic c c khon vay. Nhng kt qu ny
l c lp khi xem xt tng mu hoc mu lp li.
Bng 6.5: Tip cn tn dng
2013 - Tng mu
Doanh nghip np
h s vay chnh thc

Kh khn c khon vay

2013 - Mu lp li

Khng

Khng

(638)

(1.823)

(510)

(1.478)

25,9

74,1

25,7

74,3

Khng

Khng

(152)
23,9

(484)
76,1

(119)
23,4

(389)
76,6

Ghi ch: Tng mu v mu lp li 2013. S trong ngoc n l s quan st.

- 44 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Mt s doanh nghip khng np h s xin vay tn dng chnh thc c th vn gp kh


khn tn dng. Hnh 6.4 gii thch ti sao nhng doanh nghip ny khng np h s xin vay.
15% s doanh nghip iu tra cho bit li sut cho vay qu cao, 10% thy qu trnh np h
s vay qu kh v 17% khng mun n nn. Gn 2% doanh nghip mc n trm trng
hoc khng c th chp. Cui cng, 50% doanh nghip khng np h s xin vay v h
cm thy rng h khng c nhu cu. Cc doanh nghip ny khng th c xp vo nhm
cc doanh nghip c kh khn tn dng. Do vy, trong s nhm khng np h s (1.823
doanh nghip), gn mt na c th c phn loi l doanh nghip gp kh khn tn dng.
a s doanh nghip ny vo nhm cc doanh nghip c kh khn tn dng c ngha l 906
doanh nghip c tip cn hn ch vi tn dng, tng ng vi 37% mu. B sung cc doanh
nghip c tip cn hn ch (152 doanh nghip gp kh khn trong vic c c khon vay)
c ngha l 43% s doanh nghip c tip cn hn ch hoc gp kh khn.T l ny tng nh
so vi iu tra nm 2011 khi t l doanh nghip c tip cn hn ch hoc kh khn l 39%.
Hnh 6.4: Ti sao cc doanh nghip khng np h s vay vn?
2011

2013

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Khng bo Khng mun Quy trnh qu Khng cn
lnh
mc n
kh khn
vay

T l li sut n nhiu
qu ca
ri

Khc

Bng 6.6 trnh by tip cn tn dng ca cc nhm doanh nghip khc nhau. So vi
nm 2011, tip cn tn dng bnh qun gim khong 4 im phn trm. Tnh hnh tip cn
tn dng xu hn i vi cc doanh nghip siu nh v nh nhng tng ln i vi cc
doanh nghip va. Doanh nghip h gia nh c mc tip cn tn dng thp hn hai ln so
vi cc doanh nghip phi h gia nh v t l tip cn tn dng st gim cao hn i vi cc
doanh nghip h gia nh. Xu hng tng t cho nhm doanh nghip thnh th-nng thn,
vi vic tip cn tn dng ch yu cc doanh nghip thnh th. Chnh lch trong tip cn
tn dng gia cc doanh nghip min Nam v min Bc bt u c thu hp nhng
doanh nghip min Bc vn chim ch yu.

- 45 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 6.6: Tip cn tnh dng theo nhm doanh nghip
2011

2013

S quan st

S quan st

Tng s

2.418

29,4

2.461

25,9

Siu nh

1.660

21,7

1.763

18,4

Nh

613

42,6

566

40,5

Va

145

62,1

132

63,6

1.570

23,1

1.553

18,3

848

41,2

908

39,0

Thnh th

1.036

23,7

1.062

18,5

Nng thn

1.382

33,7

1.399

31,6

Min Nam

1.015

24,0

1.059

23,2

Min Bc

1.402

33,3

1.402

28,0

Doanh nghip h gia nh


Doanh nghip phi h gia nh

Tip theo chng ti tm hiu v c im ca cc doanh nghip gp kh khn tn dng.


Bng 6.7 trnh by t l doanh nghip gp kh khn tn dng tc tnh thnh th v nng
thn theo hnh thc php l. Ti khu vc nng thn c nhiu doanh nghip h gia nh gp
kh khn tn dng hn (65%). Tr doanh nghip h gia nh, cc doanh nghip ti khu vc
thnh th gp kh khn nhiu hn so vi cc doanh nghip ti nng thn. Khong cch gia
doanh nghip h gia nh v phi h gia nh v kh khn tn dng c thu hp hn trong
nm 2013. Trong nm 2011 doanh nghip phi h gia nh gp kh khn tn dng nhiu hn
so vi cc nm trc (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010).
Bng 6.7: Loi hnh doanh nghip no gp kh khn v tn dng?
Kh khn tn dng
Hnh thc php l
H gia nh

S quan st Nng thn Thnh th Tng s


(1.553)

65,1

34,9

41,7

T nhn/1 thnh vin

(198)

35,7

64,3

42,4

Hp danh/Tp th/HTX

(55)

23,1

76,9

47,3

Cng ty TNHH

(546)

28,0

72,0

45,8

Cng ty c phn

(109)

22,0

78,0

45,9

Hnh 6.5 trnh by mt s nguyn nhn doanh nghip khng vay c vn, cho thy
ro cn ln nht trong vay vn l kh khn trong vic xin c ph duyt ca ngn hng. C
ti 40% doanh nghip gp kh khn ny trong vic tip cn khon vay. Gn mt phn ba s
doanh nghip thiu th chp vay. Kh khn v th tc hnh chnh cng l ro cn i vi
khong 25% doanh nghip. C 196 doanh nghip trong nm 2011 v 152 doanh nghip
trong nm 2013 tr li cu hi v nguyn nhn kh khn trong vay vn. Nu phn tch theo
t trng, c cu cc kh khn c thay i mt cht gia nm 2011 v 2013 trong cc
doanh nghip gp t kh khn hn v quy nh ca nh nc v thiu th chp trong nm
2013 nhng li gp nhiu kh khn hn trong vic xin c ph duyt ca ngn hng v

- 46 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

chng thc kh nng thanh ton ca doanh nghip khi np h s vay. iu ny cho thy
ci thin vic tip cn khon vay cn phi thit k cc quy trnh np h s vay. Cn ch
trng n cc cch thc c c ph duyt ca ngi c thm quyn ca ngn hng v
cc yu cu v th chp.
Hnh 6.5: Nguyn nhn gp kh khn khi vay vn

Kh khn trong vic thanh ton vi ngn hng


Thiu bo lnh
Quy nh ca Chnh ph phc tp

2013
2011

Khng m t c kh nng ca doanh nghip


Khc
0

10

20
30
T l phn trm

40

50

Bng 6.8 trnh by mi quan h gia tn dng chnh thc v tn dng phi chnh thc.
Th nht, chng ti thy ch c 26% doanh nghip vay vn t ngun chnh thc so vi
doanh nghip vay vn t ngun phi chnh thc. Ni cch khc, vi mi khon vay chnh
thc, c gn 2,5 khon vay phi chnh thc c thc hin cc DNNVV Vit Nam. Th
hai, 457 doanh nghip trong s 2.461 doanh nghip c c cc khon vay chnh thc v phi
chnh thc v gn 70% s doanh nghip khng c tip cn tn dng chnh thc s dng cc
khon vay phi chnh thc. Cu v tn dng phi chnh thc tng 5% so vi nm 2011. So snh
kt qu ny vi kt qu trong Bng 6.4 (cc khon vay phi chnh thc ch chim gn 14%
tng u t) cho thy cc khon vay phi chnh thc c gi tr nh nhng l mt cu thnh
thng xuyn trong c ch ti chnh ca cc DNNVV. Li th khng c bo co ca vic
vay khng chnh thc l thng cc khon vay ny khng c li sut trong mi quan h x
hi thn thit ca doanh nghip. 56% ca tt c cc khon vay u khng c li sut v iu
ny ph bin hn cc doanh nghip ti nng thn so vi cc doanh nghip ti thnh th vi
t l 32% so vi 21% cc khon vay khng chnh thc tng ng.
Bng 6.8: Vay phi chnh thc v ro cn tn dng

Vay khng
chnh thc

Vay chnh thc


Khng

Tng s

Phn trm

741

163

904

(36,7)

(82,0)

(18,0)

(100,0)

1.082

475

1.557

(69,5)

(30,5)

(100,0)

Tng s

1.823

638

2.461

Phn trm

(74,1)

(25,9)

(100,0)

Khng
C

- 47 -

(63,3)
(100,0)

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Bng 6.9 xem xt cc yu t quyt nh ca vic vay chnh thc v khng chnh thc.
phn trn cng ca bng, chng ti xt tng mu, phn cui ca bng, chng ti loi cc
doanh nghip khng c nhu cu tn dng. S liu cho thy doanh nghip ln hn c xu
hng s dng c tn dng chnh thc v khng chnh thc. Quy m doanh nghip vn l
yu t quan trng trong vic c c tn dng khi loi b cc doanh nghip khng c nhu
cu tn dng khi mu.
Bng 6.9: Cc c tnh tip cn tn dng
Mu (a) Tt c cc doanh nghip
Tn dng chnh thc

Tn dng
khng chnh thc

Tn dng (Chnh thc


+ khng chnh thc)

Coef

z-stat

Coef

z-stat

Coef

z-stat

Quy m (s lng
lao ng)

0,142***

(12,67)

0,088***

(7,05)

0,115***

(9,32)

Doanh nghip h gia


nh (ng=1)

-0,069***

(-2,68)

-0,064**

(-2,32)

-0,067***

(-2,61)

Thnh th (ng=1)

-0,250***

(-12,78)

-0,011

(-0,47)

-0,098***

(-4,46)

Min Nam (ng=1)

-0,029

(-1,55)

-0,131***

(-6,28)

-0,117***

(-5,93)

Bin gi ngnh

S quan st

2.461

2.461

2.461

Pseudo R-squared

0,18

0,06

0,08

Mu (b) Loi cc doanh nghip khng c nhu cu tn dng


Tn dng chnh thc

Tn dng
khng chnh thc

Tn dng (Chnh thc


+ khng chnh thc)

Coef

z-,tat

Coef

z-stat

Coef

z-stat

Quy m (s lng
lao ng)

0,162***

(9,82)

0,066***

(4,72)

0,079***

(6,78)

Doanh nghip h gia


nh (ng=1)

-0,093**

(-2,55)

-0,074**

(-2,36)

-0,077***

(-3,11)

Thnh th (ng=1)

-0,320***

(-10,95)

0,056**

(2,16)

-0,054**

(-2,51)

Min Nam (ng=1)

-0,055**

(-1,99)

-0,092***

(-3,86)

-0,064***

(-3,49)

Bin gi ngnh

S quan st

1.544

1.544

1.544

Pseudo R-squared

0,14

0,06

0,11

Ghi ch: Probit, tc ng bin. Sai s chun gp: *, ** v *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%.
C s: Ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15); ngnh ni tht (ISIC 36) loi khi c tnh do tnh tng quan cao.

- 48 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Trong cng k, c 7-9% cc doanh nghip h gia nh, ty theo c im, khng c xu
hng s dng bt k hnh thc tn dng no. iu ny cho thy doanh nghip chnh thc
c nhu cu ln khng ch vi tn dng chnh thc m c tn dng phi chnh thc. Doanh
nghip ti thnh th trong c hai phn tch thng t s dng tn dng chnh thc nhng c
kh nng vay c tn dng phi chnh thc tt hn nh m t trong phn di ca bng
khi loi cc doanh nghip khng c nhu cu tn dng. Tuy nhin, o lng chung v tip
cn tn dng ca cc doanh nghip ny l m. C 25-32% doanh nghip thnh th t s
dng tn dng chnh thc hn doanh nghip nng thn, ty theo mu c chn. Vic tip
cn tn dng khng chnh thc ph thuc vo quy m ca mi quan h x hi ca doanh
nghip v cc khon vay khng chnh thc thng l vay bn b hoc ngi thn. y l l
do ti sao cc doanh nghip thnh th ph thuc nhiu hn vo tn dng khng chnh thc
do c mi quan h x hi rng hn. Trn thc t, doanh nghip thnh th s dng vn vay
khng chnh thc thng xuyn mc 1,3 ln so vi vn vay chnh thc trong khi doanh
nghip nng thn s dng vn vay chnh thc cao hn 8%. Doanh nghip ti min Nam c
t c hi tip cn tn dng t tt c cc ngun hn. Bin min Nam khng c xc nh r
trong c tnh v tip cn tn dng chnh thc nhng li c xc nh r khi loi cc
doanh nghip khng c nhu cu tn dng. Doanh nghip min Nam s dng tn dng chnh
thc thp hn 5% so vi doanh nghip min Bc. iu ny minh ha kh khn ca mt s
doanh nghip v doanh nghip h gia nh min Nam c xu hng ph thuc nhiu hn
vo cc khon vay chnh thc u t so vi cc doanh nghip tng ng ti cc tnh
thnh khc nh th hin trong Bng 6.4.

- 49 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

SN XUT, CNG NGH V NNG SUT LAO NG

Phn ny s xem xt cc c tnh v sn xut v cng ngh cng nh nng sut lao
ng ca cc DNNVV trong cuc iu tra nm 2013 c so snh vi kt qu tng ng ca
cuc iu tra nm 2011. Do , ni dung phn tch ti chng ny c th so snh c vi
cc ni dung ca cc bo co nhng nm trc (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER,
2012; CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010).

7.1 a dng ha v i mi
Theo mc ch ca bo co ny th mt doanh nghip c xc nh l a dng ha trong
sn xut nu doanh nghip sn xut t hai sn phm tr ln theo phn ngnh cp 4 (4-digit)
ca ISIC. a dng ha sn phm c k vng s gip doanh nghip chu tn thng nh hn
trc cc c sc, do c th tng kh nng sng st ca mnh. Tuy nhin, iu ny li c th
lm cho nng sut ca cc doanh nghip ny s thp hn trong ngn hn. Bng 7.1 th hin mc
trung bnh ca a dng ha phn theo quy m v a bn hot ng ca doanh nghip iu
tra. Kt qu iu tra nm 2011 cho thy khong 11% cc doanh nghip c sn xut nhiu hn
mt sn phm theo phn ngnh ISIC cp 4. T l ny duy tr mc tng ng trong iu tra
nm 2013. Cc phn tch trc y v DNNVV Vit Nam cho thy cao tro ca a dng ha
sn xut ti cc doanh nghip ny l vo nm 2009 khi c ti 15% s doanh nghip c iu
tra c sn xut nhiu hn mt sn phm theo phn ngnh ISIC cp 4 (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v
UNU-WIDER, 2012; CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). V vy, cc DNNVV trong vng iu tra gn
nht (2011) th hin s gim xung. Nhn chung, cc con s trong Bng 7.1 ch ra rng phn ln
cc DNNVV Vit Nam hot ng tng i chuyn mn ha. Xu hng sn xut nhiu hn
mt sn phm thng xut hin cc doanh nghip quy m ln hn cho thy mc chuyn
mn ha s gim i khi quy m ca doanh nghip tng ln. Mc a dng ha thp hn cc
doanh nghip siu nh c th ch ra mc km cnh tranh ca mnh trong cc hot ng kinh
doanh hoc c th do thiu nng lc sn xut cng mt lc nhiu sn phm khc nhau. Tip
tc khng nh xu th trong nm 2011, kt qu iu tra 2013 ch ra rng cc doanh nghip thuc
khu vc nng thn v cc doanh nghip pha Bc c xu hng a dng ha sn phm hn so
vi cc doanh nghip thnh th v khu vc pha Nam.
Bng 7.1: T l a dng ha v i mi (phn trm)

Chung
DN siu nh
DN nh
DN va
Thnh th
Nng thn
Pha Nam
Pha Bc

a dng ha
(Nhiu hn 1 SP theo
phn ngnh ISIC cp 4)
2011
2013
11,0
10,9
10,1
8,8
11,1
16,1
20,7
16,7
9,3
9,6
12,3
11,9
8,2
9,6
13,0
11,9

i mi 1
(Pht trin sn phm mi)
2011
2013
4,0
0,6
3,4
0,4
4,6
1,2
8,9
0,8
5,2
0,6
3,1
0,6
3,3
0,4
4,5
0,8

Ghi ch: T l %

- 50 -

i mi 2
(Ci tin sn phm hin c)
2011
2013
38,4
16,3
32,9
12,7
48,8
24,2
57,9
30,3
46,9
18,5
32,1
14,6
43,1
15,3
35,1
17,0

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Mc i mi l mt trong nhng nhn t thc y tnh nng ng ca doanh


nghip. Mt doanh nghip c coi l c i mi nu doanh nghip sn xut sn phm
mi (theo phn ngnh ISIC cp 4) trong vng 2 nm qua (gia hai cuc iu tra) (i mi 1)
hoc doanh nghip c nhng ci tin quan trng i vi cc sn phm hin c (i mi
2). Bng 7.1 ch ra rng t l cc doanh nghip gii thiu sn phm mi gim ng k
trong giai on 2011- 2013. Cc doanh nghip c quy m ln hn v cc doanh nghip
pha Bc duy tr kh nng ln hn trong vic a ra sn phm mi. Trong iu tra nm
2013, cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th v nng thn cho thy t l gii thiu sn
phm mi l nh nhau, mc d t l thp. iu ny l tri ngc vi thc tin ca nm
2011 khi m cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th c t l i mi cao hn so vi cc
doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng thn.
T l cc doanh nghip ci tin sn phm hin c ca mnh gim i trong giai on
2009-2011, t 41% xung cn 38%. c bit l nhm doanh nghip quy m nh th hin
r xu hng ny. Mt ln na kt qu cho thy cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th v
doanh nghip khu vc pha Nam c t l ci tin sn phm cao hn cc doanh nghip
khu vc nng thn v pha Bc. Thc t ny c th l gii bi nguyn nhn v gnh nng
hng tn kho: thay v gii thiu sn phm hoc cng ngh mi, cc doanh nghip thng tp
trung vo vic tiu th hng tn trong kho.
Bng 7.2 xem xt v mc a dng ha v i mi trong mt s ngnh, lnh vc.
Tng t nh nm 2011, cc doanh nghip trong ngnh thc phm dng nh t a dng
ha sn phm ca mnh hn so vi cc doanh nghip thuc cc ngnh khc. Cc doanh
nghip thuc ngnh ny cng khng c mc i mi nh cc doanh nghip nhng
ngnh khc. Cc doanh nghip trong ngnh ch bin g (ISIC 20) v ngnh thp (ISIC 28)
cho thy mc ang dng ha cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip cc ngnh cn li.
Ngnh thp (ISIC 28) v sn xut ni tht (ISIC 36) cng l nhng ngnh c mc pht
trin sn phm mi cao hn nhng mc khng ng k so vi cc ngnh khc. Ngnh
sn xut ni tht (ISIC 36) cng l ngnh m phn ln i mi tp trung v ci tin sn
phm hin c.
Bng 7.2: a dng ha v i mi phn theo ngnh ngh (phn trm)
a dng ha
ISIC
(4-digit)

i mi
(Pht trin sn
phm mi)

i mi 2
(Ci tin sn
phm hin c)

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

15

Dch v n ung

6,2

5,2

2,3

0,0

26,8

6,9

20

Sn phm t g

14,3

14,9

2,5

0,5

31,5

22,4

25

Sn phm t cao su

12,7

12,9

2,9

0,0

51,0

24,8

28

Sn phm thp cn

12,9

14,8

4,5

1,1

46,1

18,2

36

Ni tht

16,4

8,5

7,9

1,2

58,2

28,1

Ghi ch: Ch cc ngnh c trn 100 quan st hng nm c phn tch. Gi tr c tnh bng phn trm (%).

- 51 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Bng 7.3 xem xt cc ma trn chuyn dch v a dng ha v i mi qua mu cn


bng. Bng ma trn (a) th hin cc d liu v a dng ha sn phm. y chng ta thy ch
c 7,3% cc doanh nghip thuc nhm khng thc hin a dng ha sn phm nm 2011 c
tin hnh a dng ha sn phm trong nm 2013. Trong khi c ti 63% s doanh nghip
thuc nhm a dng ha sn phm trong nm 2011 chuyn sang nhm n ngnh trong nm
2013. Bng ma trn (b) th hin xu hng i mi sn phm ca doanh nghip iu tra trong
giai on 2 nm. Chng ta thy rng cc doanh nghip gn nh khng tin hnh i mi sn
phm trong vng hai nm gia hai cuc iu tra. c bit, khng c doanh nghip no thc
hin i mi bng vic gii thiu sn phm mi nm 2011 tip tc thc hin cch thc tng
t trong nm 2013. C trn 86% s doanh nghip khng gii thiu sn phm mi no trong
giai on xem xt. Bng ma trn (c) trnh by s quan tm ca cc DNNVV i vi ci tin
sn phm hin c ca mnh v kha cnh ny th s nng ng c th hin r hn.
Khong 13,5% cc doanh nghip khng thc hin ci tin sn phm nm 2011 tr li h c
tin hnh ci tin sn phm trong iu tra nm 2013. Khng ging nh dng i mi bng
cch gii thiu sn phm mi khi m sn phm mi khng thng xuyn c gii thiu, i
mi qua hnh thc ci thin sn phm c tin hnh thng xuyn hn vi trn 22% s
doanh nghip thc hin ci tin sn phm nm 2011 tip tc ci thin sn phm ca mnh
trong nm 2013. Tuy nhin, mt lng ln cc doanh nghip (1.074 trong tng s 1.988)
khng tin hnh ci tin sn phm ca mnh trong iu tra nm 2011 cng nh 2013 cng
c bng chng cho s chuyn mn ha ca cc DNNVV Vit Nam.
Bng 7.3: Ma trn chuyn dch a dng ha v i mi

Khng 2011
C 2011
Tng s
T l %

Khng 2011
C 2011
Tng s
T l %

Khng 2011
C 2011
Tng s
T l %

a dng ha
Khng 2013 C 2013
1.638
128
(92,8)
(7,2)
140
81
(63,3)
(36,7)
1.778
209
(89,5)
(10,5)
i mi 1
Khng 2013 C 2013
1.895
13
(99,3)
(0,7)
80
0,0
(100,0)
(0,0)
1.975
13
(99,3)
(0,7)
i mi 2
Khng 2013 C 2013
1.047
164
(86,5)
(13,5)
604
173
(77,7)
(22,3)
1.651
337
(62,7)
(37,3)

- 52 -

Tng s
1.766
(100,0)
221
(100,0)
1.987
(100,0)

T l %
(88,9)

Tng s
1.908
(100,0)
80
(100,0)
1.988
(100,0)

T l %
(96,0)

Tng s
1.211
(100,0)
777
(100,0)
1.988
(100,0)

T l %
(60,9)

(11,1)
(100,0)

(4,0)
(100,0)

(39,1)
(100,0)

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Kt qu c lng hi quy m hnh probit th hin cc c tnh lin quan n a dng


ha v i mi s dng cc c im v quy m, a bn, hnh thc s hu v ngnh ngh
c ghi nhn ti Bng 7.4 vi thng k-t c tng cng. Nhn chung, d liu iu tra
nm 2013 cho thy mt bc tranh tng t v a dng ha v i mi ca cc DNNVV Vit
Nam so vi nm 2011.
Th nht, tc ng ca quy m c th hin ti Bng 7.1 trn c cng c
thm, cc doanh nghip c quy m ln hn c kh nng a dng ha v i mi cao hn,
trong khi khuynh hng thun chiu i vi i mi ch c xc nh r trong trng
hp h s c lng hnh thc i mi dng 2. Th hai, cc doanh nghip h gia nh c
kh nng a dng ha ln hn nhng li khng cho thy s khc bit c ngha thng k v
i mi c hai hnh thc so vi cc nhm cn li. Th ba, cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc
thnh th c mc a dng ha thp hn nhng li c kh nng ci tin sn phm ca mnh
cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng thn. Th t, cc doanh nghip khu
vc pha Nam c xu hng t a dng ha v i mi so vi cc doanh nghip pha Bc
mc d h s c lng ch c ngha thng k trong trng hp i mi dng 1. Mt
nguyn nhn c th gii thch cho s khc nhau quan st c trong chuyn mn ha sn
xut ph thuc vo a bn ca doanh nghip c th l do mc cnh tranh cao hn ti cc
tnh pha Nam (TP H Ch Minh) so vi cc tnh cn li trong mu iu tra. Kt qu ny
khng nh cc kt qu tm c trong cc cuc iu tra trc (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v
UNU-WIDER, 2012; CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). Cui cng, bin gi thi gian cng c
a vo m hnh khng nh rng cc doanh nghip c mc i mi ti iu tra 2013
thp hn so vi nm 2011, trong khi bin thi gian khng cho thy ngha v mt thng
k trong trng hp ca a dng ha th hin khng c s thay i thc s v mc ang
dng ha sn phm gia nm 2011 v 2013 (sau khi cc c tnh v quy m, hnh thc php
l, a bn v ngnh ngh c a vo m hnh).
Bng 7.4: Cc c tnh v a dng ha v i mi
a dng ha

i mi 1

i mi 2

H s

Thng kz

H s

Thng
k-z

H s

Thng
k-z

Quy m DN
(log s lao ng)

0,014***

(2,67)

0,002

(0,78)

0,072***

(8,36)

DN h gia nh (C=1)

-0,060***

(-4,01)

-0,005

(-1,05)

-0,007

(-0,35)

Khu vc thnh th (C=1)

-0,054***

(-5,13)

0,003

(0,61)

0,044**

(2,54)

Pha Nam (C=1)

-0,026***

(-2,66)

-0,006*

(-1,77)

0,011

(0,75)

-0,004

(-0,47)

-0,030***

(-6,67)

-0,224***

(-16,02)

Bin thi gian


Bin ngnh ngh

S quan st (DN)

3.961

3.896

3.961

Pseudo R-squared

0,06

0,11

0,12

Ghi ch: M hnh probit, tc ng bin. Robust standard errors. *, ** v *** th hin tm quan trng ca h s
c lng mc ln lt l 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm ngnh c s: Ch bin thc phm (M ISIC 15).

- 53 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Bng 7.5 xem xt mi quan h gia a dng ha, i mi v tnh nng ng di dng
bng (panel) kha cnh tng trng lao ng (bng a) v doanh nghip rt lui khi th
trng (bng b). Bng (a) cho thy khng c bin s no trong 3 bin o lng v a dng
ha v i mi c tc ng thun chiu v quan trng n s tng trng lao ng trong m
hnh. Cc doanh nghip c iu tra khng t c tng trng v lao ng do a dng
ha v i mi em li trong giai on 2011 2013. Kt qu ny cho thy mc tt li so vi
nm 2011 khi m kt qu ch ra cc doanh nghip c i mi s c kh nng tng trng lao
ng mc 3% (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012). Tuy nhin, bng (b) li cho
thy rng cc doanh nghip c ci tin sn phm (i mi dng 2) c xc sut ngng hot
ng thp hn 2,9% so vi cc doanh nghip khng tin hnh i mi sn phm. Nh trong
bng (a) th hin, cc ch s v a dng ha v i mi dng 1 khng c tc ng quan trng
n cc c tnh v tnh nng ng ca cc doanh nghip iu tra.
Bng 7.5: a dng ha, i mi v bin ng ca doanh nghip
Tng trng lao ng (M hnh OLS)

a dng ha

H s

Thng
k-t

0,021

(1,03)

i mi dng 1

H s

Thng
k-t

0,047

(1,59)

i mi dng 2

H s

Thng
k-t

0,009

(0,65)

Quy m (log s lao ng)

-0,116***

(-15,41)

-0,117***

(-15,47)

-0,117***

(-15,60)

DN h gia nh (C=1)

-0,142***

(-8,00)

-0,143***

(-8,06)

-0,143***

(-8,05)

Thnh th (C=1)

0,017

(1,16)

0,015

(1,04)

0,015

(1,02)

Pha Nam (C=1)

0,033**

(2,56)

0,033**

(2,56)

0,031**

(2,46)

Bin ngnh ngh

S quan st (DN)

1.987

1.988

1.988

R-squared

0,13

0,13

0,13

Rt lui khi th trng (M hnh probit)

a dng ha

H s

Thng
k-z

-0,011

(-0,44)

i mi dng 1

H s

Thng
k-z

-0,014

(-0,36)

i mi dng 2

H s

Thng
k-z

-0,029*

(-1,75)

Quy m (log s lao ng)

-0,033***

(-3,53)

-0,032***

(-3,51)

-0,031***

(-3,30)

DN h gia nh (C=1)

-0,077***

(-3,22)

-0,076***

(-3,19)

-0,077***

(-3,24)

Thnh th (C=1)

0,071***

(3,85)

0,072***

(3,90)

0,074***

(3,97)

Pha Nam (C=1)

-0,027*

(-1,67)

-0,027*

(-1,66)

-0,026

(-1,57)

Bin ngnh ngh

S quan st (DN)

2.418

2.419

2.419

Pseudo R-squared

0,02

0,02

0,02

Ghi ch: c lng OLS v Probit, tc ng bin. Robust standard errors. *, ** v *** th hin tm quan trng
ca h s c lng mc ln lt l 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm ngnh c s: Ch bin thc phm (M ISIC 15).

- 54 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Hnh 7.1 th hin nhng kh khn ln nht m cc doanh nghip iu tra phi i mt
khi a ra sn phm mi. Thiu vn vn l kh khn ln nht i vi cc DNNVV c
iu tra: khong 50% cho rng thiu vn l cn tr chnh i vi vic gii thiu sn phm
mi. S liu cng ch ra rng cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng thn gp kh khn v
vn ln hn so vi cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th. Khong s doanh nghip
iu tra gp kh khn trong vic xc nh th trng cho sn phm mi ca mnh. Kh khn
v vic tm kim my mc v v tr sn xut ph hp chim khong 10% s doanh nghip c
gp kh khn trong vic a ra sn phm mi. Cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng thn
thng kh khn hn trong vic tm kim v tr sn xut, my mc v trang thit b ph hp,
trong khi cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th phi i mt vi thch thc ln hn
trong vic tuyn cc lao ng c k nng. Kt qu ny dng nh minh ha cho thc t v
s km thun li v lao ng c k nng cc khu vc thnh th hay chiu hng s dng
cng ngh km hin i hn khu vc nng thn.
Hnh7.1: Kh khn ln nht i vi vic gii thiu sn phm mi (t l %)
%
0

20

40

60

Thiu vn
Thiu th trng
Thiu my mc/thit b ph hp
Kh khn trong vic tm kim v tr SX
Thiu lao ng c k nng
Thiu ngun nguyn liu
Do cc quy nh phc tp ca nh nc
Thiu b quyt cng ngh
Khc

Ton b

Nng thn

Thnh th

7.2 Cc c trng v nng sut lao ng

Trong mc ny s tp trung vo hai cch o lng v nng sut lao ng: (i) t l
doanh thu thun/lao ng ton thi gian; v (ii) t l gia gi tr gia tng thun/lao ng
ton thi gian. Phn tch ny c thc hin trn tng s 1.862 doanh nghip iu tra c
hai vng nm 2011 v 2013. Bng 7.6 th hin hai cch o lng nng sut lao ng phn
theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn. Mc doanh thu thun/lao ng ton thi gian trung
bnh l 61,5 triu ng trong nm 2013 trong khi gi tr gia tng thun/lao ng ton
thi gian trung bnh l 16,5 triu ng. C hai con s ny phn nh nng sut lao ng
nm 2013 gim i so vi nm 2011 nhng li tng t nh mc ca nm 2009 (xem
CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012; CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). cng mt thi

- 55 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

im, cc doanh nghip c quy m ln c doanh thu thun/lao ng ton thi gian v gi
tr gia tng thun/lao ng ton thi gian cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip c quy m nh
hn. Cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th cng c doanh thu thun/lao ng ton
thi gian v gi tr gia tng thun/lao ng ton thi gian cao hn tng i so vi cc
doanh nghip ti vng nng thn. Kt qu cng tng t khi so snh gia cc doanh
nghip thuc khu vc pha Nam so vi cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc pha Bc. Tuy
nhin, cc s liu v nng sut lao ng ti cc vng v khu vc trong nm 2013 thp hn
so vi nm 2011.
Bng 7.6: Nng sut lao ng phn theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn
Nng sut lao ng dng 1

Nng sut lao ng dng 2

2011

2013

Tng trng

2011

2013

Tng trng

Chung

77,3

61,5

0,95 [0,87]

20,7

16,5

0,96 [0,89]

DN siu nh

65,8

54,3

0,96

18,0

14,1

0,96

DN nh

92,2

75,8

0,95

25,4

21,7

0,94

DN va

151,3

99,6

0,96

33,4

27,0

0,98

Thnh th

93,4

70,4

0,92

26,2

20,1

0,93

Nng thn

66,2

55,4

0,98

16,9

14,0

0,97

Pha Nam

82,9

65,5

0,96

23,1

18,6

0,97

Pha Bc

73,2

58,6

0,95

19,0

15,0

0,95

Ghi ch: n v triu VN tnh theogi tr thc. Tng trng nng sut lao ng trung
bnh (LP) c xc nh bng t l LP2013/LP2011. Mc trung v ca tng trng nng
sut lao ngth hin trong ngoc.

Bng 7.7 cho thy cc s liu v nng sut lao ng phn theo khu vc trong iu tra
2011 v 2013. Vic phn tch s gii hn trong cc ngnh ngh c trn 100 quan st trong c
hai cuc iu tra. So vi nm 2011, chng ti thy mt s st gim v doanh thu thc trung
bnh trn mt lao ng ton thi gian tt c cc ngnh tr ngnh ch bin g (m ISIC 20)
vi mc 71,9 triu ng/ngi trong nm 2013. cch o lng th hai v nng sut lao
ng (gi tr gia tng thun/lao ng), tt c cc ngnh u cho thy c s gim i so vi
mc ca nm 2011. Trong cc ngnh c phn tch, ngnh sn xut cc sn phm t thp
cn (m ISIC 28) c gi tr gia tng trn u ngi cao nht. Bng 7.7 cng cho thy nng
sut lao ng trong ngnh sn xut ni tht (m ISIC 36) gim nhiu nht nu xt trn
cch o th hai. Mc tng nng sut lao ng trung bnh l thp hn 1 trong tt c cc ngnh
th hin mc gim v nng sut t 1% n 6%. iu ny minh chng r rng v s gim st
v nng sut lao ng trong cc DNNVV ti Vit Nam trong giai on 2011- 2013. Thm
vo , mc gim c s khc nhau rt ln gia cc doanh nghip. iu ny c th hin
qua thc t l khong 75% cc doanh nghip iu tra c nng sut lao ng gim i trong
giai on 2011- 2013.

- 56 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 7.7: Nng sut lao ng phn theo ngnh ngh
LP 1

LP 2

LP 1

LP 2

M ngnh
(cp 4)

Ngnh

2011

2013

2011

2013

Tng
trng

Tng
trng

15

Dch v n ung

71,5

55,0

17,6

14,4

0,94

0.96

20

Sn phm t g

66,4

71,9

17,7

15,2

0,99

0.96

28

Sn phm thp cn

72,7

58,5

19,5

16,9

0,95

0.96

36

Ni tht

68,4

49,6

21,5

15,8

0,95

0.95

0,75

0,77

T trng doanh nghip c LP gim


(LP tng<1)

Ghi ch: LP i din cho nng sut lao ng. Ch cc ngnh c trn 100 quan st/nm mi c tnh ton.

Cui cng, Bng 7.8 trnh by cc kt qu c lng hi quy OLS xem xt mi


quan h gia tng trng nng sut lao ng (giai on 2011-2013) v cc yu t tc ng
(bin s: a bn, hnh thc s hu, ngnh ngh v quy m doanh nghip) c o lng
theo mc ca nm 2011, trong chng ti c b sung thm cc bin ch bo gm mc
a dng ha v i mi. Thm vo , chng ti s dng nng sut lao ng nm 2011 l
bin s kim sot. Gi tr Robust standard errors c th hin bn cnh cc gi tr c
lng t m hnh.
Chng ti nhn thy xu hng gim nh thng l ca li nhun, c ngha rng cc h
s c lng m (-) vi mc ngha cao ca nng sut lao ng nm 2011 ch ra rng cc
doanh nghip m nng sut lao ng ban u mc cao s c mc tng thp hn so vi cc
doanh nghip c mc nng sut lao ng ban u thp hn. Pht hin ny cng tng t vi
kt qu trong bo co v DNNVV Vit Nam nm 2011 do CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNUWIDER (2012) thc hin. Kt qu trnh by ti Bng 7.8 cng cho thy rng nng sut lao
ng tng ln theo quy m ca doanh nghip khng ph thuc vo cch thc o lng v
nng sut lao ng. Kt qu ny cng khng nh li nhng kt qu tnh ton th hin
Bng 7.6 trn. a dng ha sn xut c mi quan h thun chiu vi nng sut khi n
c o lng cch hai, iu ny c ngha rng kh nng tng gi tr gia tng trn mt lao
ng ca cc doanh nghip c quan h cht vi cc loi sn phm hin c ca doanh nghip
. Ngc li, cc h gia nh khng phi l nhm c li th trong tng trng nng sut lao
ng khi i lng ny c o dng gi tr gia tng trn mt lao ng (h s c lng
c gi tr m). Cui cng, cc doanh nghip khu vc thnh th v cc doanh nghip thuc
khu vc pha Nam c kh nng tng nng sut lao ng cao hn cc doanh nghip thuc khu
vc nng thn v cc doanh nghip khu vc pha Bc.

- 57 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 7.8: Cc c tnh v nng sut lao ng
Tng nng sut lao ng (2011 n 2013)
dln(LP1)

dln(LP2)

H s

Thng k-t

H s

Thng k-t

Nng sut lao ng (log)

-0,477***

(-20,16)

-0,577***

(-24,11)

Quy m DN (log s lao ng)

0,124***

(5,82)

0,128***

(7,27)

a dng ha (C=1)

0,064

(1,24)

0,089**

(2,02)

i mi 1 (C=1)

0,015

(0,19)

-0,018

(-0,27)

i mi 2 (C=1)

0,021

(0,65)

-0,020

(-0,69)

DN h gia nh (C=1)

-0,066

(-1,35)

-0,070*

(-1,79)

Thnh th (C=1)

-0,054

(-1,47)

0,075**

(2,30)

Pha Nam (C=1)

0,052*

(1,65)

0,076***

(2,73)

Bin ngnh ngh

S quan st (DN)

1.861

1.861

Pseudo R-squared

0,27

0,33

Ghi ch: M hnh OLS. Robust standard errors. *, ** v *** th hin tm quan trng ca h s c lng
mc ln lt l 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm ngnh c s: Ch bin thc phm (M ISIC 15)..

7.3 Cng ngh v hiu qu k thut


Bng 7.9 m t mt s c trng ca cng ngh c s dng ti cc doanh nghip
c iu tra xt trn kha cnh v mc , tui v tnh trng ca cng ngh khi mua. S
liu ch ra rng c 5% cc doanh nghip iu tra ch s dng cc cng c cm tay trong hot
ng sn xut. y l mt bc tin quan trng nu so vi t l 8% ca nm 2007 (CIEM,
DoE, ILSSA, 2010). S lng cc doanh nghip ch s dng cc my mc vn hnh bng
tay ti iu tra nm 2013 cng gim t 5% xung 2,2% ti iu tra nm 2011, t l s dng
my mc vn hnh bng in tng t 27% nm 2011 ln 29% nm 2013.
Thit b v my mc s dng trong sn sut l kh mi, khong 84% cc doanh nghip
iu tra s dng cc thit b, my mc c tui di 10 nm. S liu gn nh khng thay i
nhiu trong c hai cuc iu tra 2011 v 2013 khi s dng mu cn bng tnh ton.
Tng t, t trng cc doanh nghip s dng my mc v thit b c tui trn 10 nm
trong 2 cuc iu tra ny cng mc tng ng nhau. Cui cng, khong 74% cng ngh
c mua mi trong iu tra 2013 v t l ny khng thay i so vi t l ca iu tra nm
2011. T l cng ngh qua s dng c mua trong nm 2013 tng ln mt cht (1,1%)
so vi t l ca nm 2011, trong khi t l cng ngh t sn xut gim 1,3% so vi nm
2011. L thuyt gi rng cc doanh nghip mua li cc hng ha vn thng l nhng
doanh nghip gp kh khn nht v tn dng. T kt qu ti Bng 7.9 c th dn n nhn
nh rng s lng cc doanh nghip gp kh khn v ti chnh tng ln trong giai on

- 58 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

2011-2013.5Tc ng ny vn gi nguyn khi phn tch s dng bng mu cn bng cho


chng ti c th i n nhn nh rng cc doanh nghip c iu tra ln u tin vo nm
2013 cng s dng mt t l cc loi cng ngh qua s dng tng t nh cc doanh
nghip iu tra cc vng trc .
Bng 7.9: c tnh cng ngh (t l %)

Mc cng ngh

Tui ca cng ngh

Cng ngh mi hay mua li

2011

2013

Cng c dng tay

5,3

5,0

My mc ch vn hnh bng tay

5,0

2,2

My mc ch dng in

26,8

29,0

C c cc loi trn

62,9

63,8

Di 3 nm

17,4

15,2

T 3 5 nm

32,0

33,5

T 6 10 nm

34,7

35,8

T 11 20 nm

13,7

13,1

Trn 20 nm

2,3

2,3

Mi

73,7

73,8

qua s dung

22,2

23,3

T sn xut (thit k)

4,1

2,8

Hnh 7.2 th hin t l cc doanh nghip mua cng ngh mi phn theo khu vc v
quy m. T l cc doanh nghip tip nhn cc cng ngh mi gim 6,6% im phn trm,
t 13% nm 2011 xung 6,4% nm 2013. y l t l doanh nghip tip nhn cng ngh
mi thp nht k t iu tra nm 2005 v n gn tng ng t l quan st c nm 2007
(CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010; Rand et al., 2008). Khi bng mu cn bng c s dng
phn tch, kt qu cho thy t l gim ny ln ti 7,2 im phn trm. Vic t l cc doanh
nghip gii thiu/ng dng cng ngh mi gim trong qu trnh sn xut c th do s gim
st v t l i mi v t l i mi thng dn n vic tip nhn cc cng ngh mi trong
sn xut. T l gim xung ny cng c th phn nh mc bt n cao hn trong hot
ng sn xut kinh doanh di tc ng ca khng hong ti chnh lm cho mc cn ca
cc doanh nghip v cng ngh mi gim i. S gim st ln nht t l tip nhn cng ngh
mi quan st c cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th v cc doanh nghip c quy
m nh v quy m va. So snh gia cc khu vc v cc nhm quy m vi nhau chng ti
thy rng khu vc thnh th v khu vc nng thn c xu hng tng t trong vic tip nhn
cc cng ngh mi trong hai nm trc . Xt v quy m, tc ng theo cc nhm dng
nh c th hin r nt: cc doanh nghip ln hn c s st gim mnh hn trong tip
nhn cng ngh mi vo qu trnh sn xut ca mnh.

Pht hin ny cng tng ng vi kt qu tm c ti Chng 6.

- 59 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Hnh 7.2: Cng ngh mi


2011

2013

40,0
35,0
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
Chung

Thnh th

Nng thn

Siu nh

Nh

Va

Tip theo, chng ti s so snh hot ng nng cp cng ngh i vi cc doanh


nghip la chn cu tr li l s tip tc s dng cng ngh hin ti trong iu tra. Kt qu
trnh by ti Bng 7.10 c c t c lng m hnh hi quy OLS thng thng v m
hnh probit cho thy rng c mi quan h gia kh nng tng trng ca doanh nghip v
vic rt lui khi th trng v cc bin ch s dn bo v gii thiu cng ngh mi, tng
trng lao ng v kh nng tn ti ca doanh nghip. Bin ch s dn bo v gii thiu
cng ngh mi c ngha thng k trong c hai c lng vi cc bin ph thuc l tng
trng lao ng cng nh kh nng tn ti ca doanh nghip, tuy nhin c s khc nhau v
mc tc ng. H s c lng dng i vi tng trng lao ng cho thy rng vic
gii thiu cng ngh mi c quan h thun chiu vi tng trng ca doanh nghip, trong
khi c hi tn ti ca doanh nghip s gim i khi cng ngh mi c gii thiu. Mi
quan h thun chiu gia gii thiu cng ngh mi v tng trng ca doanh nghip ch ra
rng gii thiu cng ngh mi c th khng ng ngha l s s dng t lao ng hn so vi
khi p dng cc cng ngh c. Hn na, kt qu c lng cng ch ra rng cc doanh
nghip c quy m ln hn s tng trng chm hn6v kh nng sng st s tng ln theo
quy m ca doanh nghip (cc doanh nghip c quy m ln hn c xc sut rt lui khi th
trng thp hn so vi cc doanh nghip nh hn). Nhng kt lun ny c rt ra c lp
vi cu tr li trong cu hi l cc doanh nghip c d nh rt khi th trng trong tng
lai khng c t ra trong bng hi iu tra.

Kt qu ny cng c l thuyt tin ha (pht trin) ca Jovanovic (1982).

- 60 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 7.10: Tc ng ca vic gii thiu/p dng cng ngh mi
Tng trng lao ng

Rt lui khi th trng (probit)

H s

Thng k-t

Tc ng bin

Thng k-t

Gii thiu cng ngh mi (C = 1)

0,045***

(2,60)

-0.039*

(-1,80)

Quy m DN (log s lng lao ng)

-0,119***

(-15,66)

-0.030***

(-3,22)

H gia nh (C=1)

-0,140***

(-7,92)

-0.078***

(-3,27)

Thnh th (C=1)

0,016

(1,09)

0.072***

(3,89)

Pha Nam(C=1)

0,030**

(2,36)

-0.026

(-1,59)

Bin gi ngnh

Yes

Yes

S quan st (DN)

1.988

2.419

Pseudo R-squared

0,134

0,023

Ghi ch: M hnh hi quy OLS v Probit, tc ng bin. Robust standard errors. *, ** v *** th hin tm
quan trng ca h s c lng mc ln lt l 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm c s: TP HCM, DN gia nh v
ngnh ch bin thc phm (M ISIC 15).

Hiu sut cng ngh (TE) th hin kh nng cao nht ca cc doanh nghip trong sn
xut vi mc u vo nht nh. y hiu sut cng ngh c c tnh bng cch s
dng m hnh sn xut gii hn xc sut vi hai b d liu v u vo v u ra khc nhau.
i vi mc ch trong bo co ny, hiu sut cng ngh c o lng theo hai cch. Cch
tnh th nht, hiu sut cng ngh c o lng thng qua gi tr gia tng thc l u ra,
tng s lao ng ton thi gian v gi tr thc ca vn vt cht (hu hnh) l u vo. Cch
o lng th hai v hiu sut cng ngh s dng tng doanh thu thun nh l u ra ca
doanh nghip v tng lao ng ton thi gian, gi tr thc vn vt cht v tng gi tr hng
ha trung gian l u vo. Gi tr ca hiu sut cng ngh c c tnh da trn mu cn
bng. Mt doanh nghip hot ng vi cng sut ti a c th c k vng l c hiu sut
cng ngh bng 1.
Hnh 7.3 trnh by hiu sut s dng cng ngh trung bnh tnh trn hai phng php
o c cp trn. Mc hiu sut cng ngh trung bnh tnh c da trn php o th
nht l 0,40 v php o th hai l 0,41. Hiu sut cng ngh ca nm 2009 (CIEM, DoE,
ILSSA, 2010) ch cao hn mt cht so vi mc ca nm 2013. Mc hiu sut cng ngh
c tnh ca cc doanh nghip nh v va Vit Nam khng cng mc vi hiu sut cng
ngh m Tybout (2000) a ra. Tc gi tm ra mt phn bng chng khng ng k ng h
quan im rng th trng cc nc ang pht trin l ni c cc doanh nghip hot ng
km hiu qu v gi tr ca hiu sut cng ngh dao ng trong khong 60- 70% so vi mc
hiu qu nht. Mc hiu sut cng ngh thp nht cc DNNVV Vit Nam cho thy rng cc
th trng Vit Nam th hin s d di hn i vi cc doanh nnghip c hiu sut cng
ngh thp so vi mong mun trc . Hai kh nng c th gii thch cho thc t ny l: (i)
a s cc doanh nghip c iu tra c th ang hot ng trong cc th trng ngch ni t
hp dn i vi cc doanh nghip tin tin hn, iu ny cho php cc doanh nghip ny c
th tn ti c mc d hot ng vi hiu sut cng ngh thp; v (ii) tng trng nhanh ca
cc doanh nghip c th khin cc doanh nghip ny phi lin tc i mi cng ngh sn xut,
iu ny c th khng cho php cc doanh nghip c c li ch y t vic hc hi qua
qu trnh kinh doanh(learning-by-doing) sn xut ngy cng hiu qu hn.

- 61 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Hnh 7.3: Hiu sut cng ngh trung bnh (TE)
TE phng php 1

TE phng php 2

0,50
0,45
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
Chung

DN mi

DN lu nm Siu nh

Nh

Va

Thnh th Nng thn

Thm vo , Hnh 7.3 th hin rng cc doanh nghip quy m va c hiu qu hn


cc doanh nghip thuc nhm c quy m nh hn. Hnh ny cng ch ra rng cc doanh
nghip mi tham gia th trng c hiu qu cng ngh thp hn cc doanh nghip c thi
gian hot ng lu hn c hai phng php o. iu ny cng nm trong k vng bi cc
doanh nghip mi gia nhp th trng thng c hiu sut cng ngh thp hn v qua thi
gian, thng qua qu trnh va kinh doanh va hc hi hiu qu cng ngh s dn c nng
ln. Cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng thn c hiu sut cng ngh cao hn khong 2
im phn trm c hai cch o lng hiu sut cng ngh so vi cc doanh nghip thuc
khu vc thnh th.
Cc doanh nghip phi chi tr mc gi khc nhau i vi cc u vo v v vy s la
chn cho mnh s kt hp khc nhau cc u vo trong qu trnh sn xut ty thuc vo iu
kin mi trng m doanh nghip hot ng. V d, cc doanh nghip quy m nh c th
chi tr cho lao ng thp hn cc doanh nghip ln trong khi cc doanh nghip ln hn li
c th c c u vo ca cc sn phm trung gian vi mc gi thp hn do li th v quy
m. iu ny c th nh hng n nh cu u vo khc nhau gia cc doanh nghip.
Phng php o lng hiu qu cng ngh th hai tnh n yu t ny bng cch a gi
tr ca cc u vo trung gian khi tnh ton. Hnh 7.3 th hin kt qu tnh ton m hnh sn
xut gii hn xc sut s dng phng php th hai trong tnh hiu sut cng ngh. S m
rng phng php tnh hiu sut cng ngh khng cho thy s khc nhau ng k v kt qu
tnh ton. i vi tt c cc nhm doanh nghip, mc hiu sut cng ngh c tnh ton
thng qua cch thc th hai gn nh ging nhau tr trng hp ca nhm doanh nghip mi
tham gia vo th trng vi mc hiu sut cng ngh cao hn khong 10 im phn trm.

- 62 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Phn b cc c lng mt Kernel v hiu sut cng ngh ca cc doanh nghip


khng c tnh ton y song n cng mang n nhng thng tin c ngha. Phn b ca
mt Kernel v hiu sut cng ngh phng php o lng 1 l lch phi vi mt s
im thay i v pha bn phi ca phn b ch ra rng mt s lng ng k cc doanh
nghip trong mu c hiu sut cng ngh cao hn mc trung bnh ca mu. Tng t, cc
c tnh v phn b mt Kernel phng php o lng hiu sut cng ngh th hai
cng cho thy s lch phi vi mt s im thay i v hng n gi tr 1. iu ny ch ra
rng mt s doanh nghip khi iu chnh gi tr u vo trung gian s c hiu sut cng ngh
cao hn mc trung bnh chung.
Bng 7.11 trnh by kt qu c lng hi quy tuyn tnh OLS s dng bin ph thuc
l hiu sut cng ngh trong c hai php o trn. Cc nhn t c bn (tui ca doanh
nghip, quy m, a bn v hnh thc s hu) l cc bin c lp. Chng ta bt u vi kt
qu c lng t php o lng hiu sut cng ngh th nht khi u ra c tnh l gi tr
gia tng thun v u vo l vn vt cht v s lao ng ton thi gian. Nh th hin
trn, cc doanh nghip c tui t hn th hiu sut cng ngh thp hn so vi cc doanh
nghip nhiu tui hn. Cc doanh nghip nh c hiu sut cng ngh thp hn so vi cc
doanh nghip siu nh. Xem xt ti tnh cht v a bn, bng chng cho thy rng ch cc
doanh nghip hot ng ti Ph Th v Ngh An cho thy hiu sut cng ngh cao hn c
ngha thng k so vi cc doanh nghip ti Thnh ph H Ch Minh. Trong khi cc doanh
nghip ti H Ni, Qung Nam v Khnh Ha c mc hiu sut cng ngh thp hn so vi
cc doanh nghip ti Thnh ph H Ch Minh. Kt qu c lng cng cho thy rng, ngoi
tr cc doanh nghip di cc hnh thc hp danh/hp tc x/t hp tc khng cho thy mc
khc bit c ngha thng k so vi cc h gia nh, cc doanh nghip thuc cc hnh thc
t nhn/mt thnh vin, trch nhim hu hn, cng ty c phn u c hiu sut cng ngh cao
hn mang ngha thng k so vi hiu sut ca cc doanh nghip h gia nh.
Chng ti s xem xt k hn kt qu c lng khi s dng phng php o lng
hiu qu cng ngh th hai khi u ra c o bng gi tr thc ca vn vt cht cn u
vo c o bng tng s lao ng ton thi gian v hng ha trung gian. Kt qu c
lng ny cho thy cc doanh nghip c tui thp hn c hiu sut cng ngh thp hn cc
doanh nghip c tui i cao hn. Cc doanh nghip quy m va cng c hiu sut cng
ngh cao hn cc doanh nghip siu nh trong khi cc doanh nghip quy m nh c mc
hiu sut cng ngh tng ng vi cc doanh nghip siu nh (h s c lng khng c
ngha v mt thng k) khi cc yu t v tui doanh nghip, a bn hot ng v hnh
thc s hu c a vo m hnh. Theo Jovanovic (1993), vic sn xut 2 sn phm s
hiu qu hn mt sn phm khi quy m ln, iu ny gi m mt iu rng s thiu tnh
a dng ha cc doanh nghip siu nh c th hin trn c th gii thch cho thc tin
v mc hiu sut cng ngh thp ca cc doanh nghip ny. Xem xt n tnh cht v a
bn hot ng, kt qu c c tng t nh trng hp i vi khi s dng phng php
o lng hiu sut cng ngh th nht. Kt qu c lng lin quan n hnh thc s hu
mc no c mt cht thay i: h gia nh c hiu sut cng ngh cao hn cc hnh
thc s hu khc ngoi tr nhm hp danh/hp tc x/t hp tc v cc cng ty c phn.

- 63 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 7.11: Cc nhn t nh hng n hiu sut cng ngh
o lng 1
Thng kt

H s

o lng 2
Thng kt

H s

Tui doanh nghip

Mi thnh lp

-0,171***

(-10,79) -0,100*** (-13,18)

Quy m

DN nh

-0,034**

(-2,20)

-0,014

(-1,54)

DN va

0,026

(0,70)

0,037*

(1,68)

H Ni

-0,057***

(-3,21)

-0,034***

(-3,26)

Ph Th

0,055**

(2,37)

0,032**

(2,31)

H Ty

-0,018

(-0,95)

-0,010

(-0,82)

Hi Phng

-0,025

(-1,12)

-0,011

(-0,86)

Ngh An

0,067***

(3,07)

0,045***

(3,55)

Qung Nam

-0,050**

(-2,49)

-0,021*

(-1,65)

Khnh Ha

-0,087***

(-3,37)

-0,045***

(-2,80)

Lm ng

-0,030

(-1,01)

-0,024

(-1,36)

Long An

0,019

(0,64)

0,014

(0,84)

0,065***

(2,82)

0,023*

(1,75)

0,059

(1,45)

0,038

(1,62)

Cng ty TNHH

0,084***

(4,86)

0,034***

(3,40)

Cng ty c phn

0,064*

(1,85)

0,028

(1,39)

a bn

Hnh thc php l

T nhn/mt thnh vin


Hp danh/t hp tc/hp tc x

Bin gi ngnh ngh

S lng quan st (DN)

1.988

1.988

R-squared

0,068

0,068

Ghi ch: M hnh hi quy tuyn tnh OLS vi robust standard errors. *, ** v *** th hin tm quan trng ca h s
c lng mc ln lt l 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm c s: incumbent, DN siu nh, TP HCM, DN gia nh, v
ngnh ch bin thc phm (M ISIC 15). o lng 1: Gi tr gia tng thun, vn vt cht thun v s lao ng ton
thi gian. o lng 2: Doanh thu thun, gi tr vn vt cht thun, cc u vo trung gian v lao ng ton thi gian.

7.4 c tnh v cc u vo sn xut v dch v kinh doanh


Phn ny tp trung vo nng lc sn xut v cc u vo ch yu m cc doanh nghip
s dng vo qu trnh sn xut. Nng lc sn xut c o bng mc sn xut hin ti so vi
mc sn xut ti a doanh nghip c th c vi my mc thit b hin c. Cc doanh nghip
c hi v kh nng tng sn lng ca h m khng cn phi mua thm my mc hoc
thit b mi.
Bng 7.12 trnh by kt qu phn tch phn theo quy m, tui v a bn hot ng ca
doanh nghip. Ch 1% cc doanh nghip cho rng h khng th gia tng nng lc sn xut
ca mnh thm na. T l ny gim mnh nu so vi mc 16% ca nm 2009 (CIEM, DoE,
ILSSA, 2010). Tuy nhin, 1/3 s doanh nghip tin rng h khng th tng nng lc sn xut
thm trn 10% mc hin ti. Mt t l cao hn mt cht (37%) cc doanh nghip cho rng
h c kh nng tng nng lc sn xut ca mnh ln n 25% v 20% c kh nng tng nng
lc sn xut ca mnh ln mc 50%. Ch di 1% cc doanh nghip cho rng h c kh
nng tng gp i nng lc sn xut hin ti. Kt qu trn cho thy nng lc sn xut ca

- 64 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

cc doanh nghip nhn chung l tng i cao. Cc doanh nghip mi k vng s c th


tng nng lc sn xut thm 50% mc hin ti trong khi mc gia tng k vng ca cc
doanh nghip c tui nhiu hn tng ng vi mc trung bnh ca mu. Xem xt n quy
m ca doanh nghip, kt qu cho thy cc doanh nghip nh hn khng tin rng h c kh
nng tng nng lc sn xut ln trn mc 25%, iu ny cho thy rng cc doanh nghip quy
m nh s dng gn ht nng lc sn xut ca mnh. Cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc
thnh th cng hot ng vi cng sut cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng
thn vi khong 40% cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th cho rng h khng th tng
nng lc sn xut ln cao hn 10% mc hin ti. Mt t l thp hn khng ng k (37,5%)
cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng thn cho rng h c kh nng tng nng lc sn xut
thm 25% so vi mc hin ti.
Bng 7.12: Nng lc sn xutnm 2013 (T l %)
Khng th
tng thm

Di
10%

T 10%
n 25%

T 25%
n 50%

T 50%
n 100%

Tng hn
100%

Tng s Chung

1,0

33,8

36,6

20,8

7,5

0,5

Tui DN Mi thnh lp

0,0

20,8

58,3

20,8

0,0

0,0

1,0

33,9

36,4

20,8

7,5

0,5

1,2

34,1

35,5

21,2

7,4

0,6

DN nh

0,7

34,8

36,6

19,6

8,1

0,2

DN va

0,0

24,4

50,4

19,9

5,3

0,0

0,3

40,9

35,5

16,8

6,5

0,0

1,5

28,1

37,5

23,9

8,2

0,8

ang
ng

hot

Quy m DN siu nh

Khu vc Thnh th
Nng thn

Ghi ch: Cu hi iu tra: Vi cc my mc/thit b hin ti, doanh nghip ng b c th tng nng lc sn xut
ln bao nhiu %?

Cc vn lin quan n u vo nh vic tip cn cc ngun nguyn liu th, tiu th


nng lng v phng tin vn ti hnh thnh cc quyt nh kinh doanh hng ngy ca
doanh nghip. Khong cch trung bnh vi nh cung cp chnh ca doanh nghip l 45 km
trong nm 2011 nhng tng ln 63km nm 2013. V vy, s rt th v khi xem xt c th
v tr ca nh cung cp cc nguyn liu th v chng ti m t iu ti Hnh 7.4. Khong
82% ngun u vo trung gian trong nm 2013 l t cc nh cung cp hot ng trn cng
a bn (tnh), trong khi con s ny ca nm 2011 l 83%. Mt s gim nh t l ny c th
phn nh s tng ln v thng tin v cc c hi c th c c ngun u vo ph hp t
cc a phng (tnh) khc. Cng lc , c s tng ln ngun u vo t cc tnh ln cn so
vi t l ca nm 2011, trong khi u vo trung gian t cc tnh khng ln cn chin t
trng nh hn trong tng ngun u vo m cc doanh nghip mua trong nm 2013, chim
gn 6%. Xem xt xu hng ny c th thy rng cc chi ph vn ti tng nh trong vng 4
nm tr li y thc y cc doanh nghip mua nhiu hng ha trung gian t cc tnh ln
cn thay v cc a bn xa hn.

- 65 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Hnh 7.4: Chi tit v nh cung cp nguyn vt liu
%
0

10

20

30

40

Cng x
Khc x nhng cng
huyn
2011

Cc huyn trong cng tnh

2013

Tnh ln cn
Tnh khc (khng gn k)
Nhp khu trc tip

S thay i v nh cung cp i vi nguyn liu th trn c th pht sinh do s thay


i v tiu ch la chn i vi cc nh cung cp. Khong 95% cc doanh nghip cho rng
cc nh cung cp c th t do la chn th trng.
Hnh 7.5: Cc nhn t v tiu ch chnh ca vic chn nh cung cp
2011

2013

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Quan h c T tm kim N lc
Gi cnh
nhn
marketing
tranh
t nh cung
cp

Tiu chun m bo Quen bit iu khon Gn v a


cht lng ngun cung c nhn vi thanh ton
l
nh cung
cp

Hnh 7.5 m t vic cc doanh nghip xc nh nh cung cp nh th no v cc tiu ch


ch yu la chn cc nh cung cp. S liu c c ch ra rng c s tng ln v mc tin
cy i vi cc quan h c nhn trong vic la chn cc nh cung cp so vi iu tra nm 2011.
Khong 45% cc doanh nghip la chn cc nh cung cp thng qua mi quan h c nhn trong
khi 43% xc nh nh cung cp thng qua qu trnh t tm kim. Cc DNNVV Vit Nam
dng nh t b tc ng bi cc n lc marketing t pha cc nh cung cp khi la chn ngun
cung u vo. Trong vic la chn nh cung cp cc u vo trung gian, tiu ch quan trng
nht l vic a ra mc gi cnh tranh. Cc doanh nghip cng quan tm n tiu chun cht
lng ca u vo nhng vi mc thp hn so vi nm 2011. S m bo v ngun cung
c 11% cc doanh nghip la chn l mt yu t quan trng trong khi quan h quen bit c
nhn nh cung cp, iu khon thanh ton v s gn gi v a l ch ng vai tr nh trong qu
trnh la chn nh cung cp nguyn liu th ca cc doanh nghip iu tra.

- 66 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

LAO NG

Phn ny s phn tch c cu ca th trng lao ng trong cc DNNVV trong lnh vc


sn xut Vit Nam da trn b d liu iu tra i vi ngi s dng lao ng-ngi lao
ng c thc hin cng vi iu tra v doanh nghip. Cc kha cnh khc nhau ca th
trng lao ng bao gm cu thnh ca lc lng lao ng, cu thnh ngh nghip, phng
php tuyn dng, t chc cng on, phc li x hi, gio dc v o to ca ngi lao
ng s c phn tch bn cnh phn tch v mc lng v cc yu t quyt nh tin
lng. Da trn c hai b s liu iu tra i vi cc doanh nghip v i vi ngi s dng
lao ng- ngi lao ng ang lm vic trong cc doanh nghip ny s cho chng ta thng
tin y hn v kh nng phn tch su hn cc kha cnh cn quan tm.

8.1 C cu theo tui


Hnh 8.1 th hin c cu tui ca ch s hu cng nh ngi qun l trong doanh
nghip. S mang li nhiu ngha nu vic phn tch cc doanh nhn thuc nhm tr tui v
nhm nhiu tui hn v nhn thc ca h v cng ngh, nng lc ti chnh v cch thc
qun l thy c s khc nhau ny. Trong khi cc doanh nhn tr thng l nhng
ngi c tnh i mi cao v thng s dng cc cng ngh mi th cc nh doanh nghip
thuc nhm ln tui hn li c kh nng tip cn ti chnh tt hn. Mu iu tra ca chng
ti cho thy rng cc ch doanh nghip siu nh c t l p o so vi nhm tui cao nht,
nhm trn 55 tui. Nhm c s lng ln nht ri vo nhm cc ch doanh nghip c
tui t 45-55. Trong khi cc doanh nhn di 35 tui thng s hu cc doanh nghip c
quy m nh v va v t trng rt thp trong s h s hu doanh nghip siu nh. Nhm c
tui tr nht, t 18-24 tui thng l nhng ngi c thu lm qun l trong doanh
nghip. Nhm c tui t 25-35 ch yu l ch s nh qun l ca cc doanh nghip quy
m nh v quy m va, trong khi cc doanh nghip siu nh thng thch cc nh qun
l nhm tui cao hn, trong khong 35-45 tui.
Hnh 8.1: C cu tui ca ch s hu v ngi qun l doanh nghip
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Siu nh

Nh

Va

Siu nh

Ch doanh nghip
18 - 24 tui

25 - 35 tui

Nh

Va

Ngi qun l
35 - 45 tui

- 67 -

45 - 55 tui

55 - 65 tui

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

8.2 C cu lc lng lao ng v tnh n nh


Khi s dng mu cn bng chng ti c c cc kt qu v cu thnh ca lc lng
lao ng ti Bng 8.1. Bng ny cho thy t l bnh qun lao ng thng xuyn trong cc
DNNVV Vit Nam nhn chung l khng thay i trong giai on 2011- 2013. Tuy nhin, t
trng lao ng ton thi gian nm 2013 gim 1 im phn trm so vi iu tra 2011.
Trong khi , t trng lao ng khng c tr lng tng ln vi mc tng ng vi
mc gim ca lao ng ton thi gian. Lao ng n c s thay i nhiu nht khi t l
ca nhm ny lm vic trong cc DNNVV tng t 36% nm 2011 ln 38% nm 2013.
Thay i ny din ra i vi ton b cc nhm quy m doanh nghip, tuy nhin, s thay i
ny li khng din ra nh vy khi so snh theo khu vc. cc a bn thuc khu vc thnh
th, kt qu cho thy t trng lao ng thng xuyn v ton thi gian tng ln trong khi
t l lao ng khng c tr lng li gim i hn mt na. S gia tng t l lao ng
khng c tr lng ti cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng thn c th c l gii do
mc ph bin hn ca cc doanh nghip siu nh y, nhng doanh nghip ch yu s
dng lc lng lao ng l cc thnh vin trong gia nh. Cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc
pha Nam c xu hng gim t trng lao ng ton thi gian v tng t l lao ng n. T l
lao ng khng c tr lng v lao ng n gia tng ti cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc
pha Bc.
Bng 8.1: C cu lc lng lao ng (phn trm tng s lao ng)
Chung

DN
siu nh

DN
nh

DN
va

Thnh
th

Nng thn Pha Nam

Pha
Bc

2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013

Thng
xuyn

96,2 96,1 96,8 96,4 94,7 95,1 95,1 95,8 95,9 96,6 96,6 95,7 97,8 96,6 95,0 95,7

Ton thi
gian

89,6 88,6 88,5 87,0 91,8 92,3 92,3 93,6 87,7 92,5 92,2 85,8 93,3 90,3 86,8 87,3

L n

36,5 38,3 34,3 36,7 40,9 41,9 43,3 45,1 36,1 36,6 37,0 39,6 34,3 36,2 38,2 40,0

Khng c
38,1 39,4 53,2 53,1 5,4
tr lng

5,1

0,1

S quan st
1.988 1.988 1.371 1.430 496 460 121
(DN)

0,2 49,7 21,3 21,4 52,0 30,0 30,2 44,0 46,1


98

818

818 1.170 1.170 845

845 1.143 1.143

Ghi ch: Gi tr trung bnh, t l phn trm trn tng s lao ng, mu cn bng

S thay i gia hai cuc iu tra 2011 v 2013 khng c s tc ng ca cc doanh


nghip mi c b sung trong cuc iu tra nm 2013 v kt qu tnh ton c da trn
mu cn bng. Xu hng s dng lao ng ca cc DNNVV c m t trn c th do
mc cnh tranh ngy cng gay gt hn trong khi cc chi ph vn hnh hot ng sn xut
kinh doanh i hi phi c s iu chnh v cu thnh ca lc lng lao ng theo thi
gian. S thay i cng c th do s gim st v lc lng lao ng sn c ti mt s a bn
khi lc lng lao ng c kh nng tha thun c cc iu kin lm vic, v d iu ny
c th hin qua t l thp hn ca nhm lao ng khng c tr lng ti khu vc thnh
th v cc tnh/thnh ph pha Nam. Thc t ny cng c th do p lc php l thp hn

- 68 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

i vi vic yu cu bt buc i vi iu kin lm vic ti mt s a phng c th, trong


trng hp ny l i vi khu vc nng thn v cc tnh pha Bc. Cui cng, thc trng s
dng lao ng ti cc DNNVV hin nay cho thy s gia tng tnh khng n nh ca nn
kinh t v lng tin vo tng lai gim i nn cc doanh nghip nhanh chng chuyn sang s
dng nhiu lao ng khng tr lng hn.
T trng lao ng khng c tr lng cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc phi chnh
thc tng t 71% trong cuc iu tra nm 2011 ln 77% nm 2013.7Trong khi , t
trng ny ti cc doanh nghip khu vc chnh thc vn gi mc 24% c hai cuc iu
tra. Kt qu ny cng tng t vi pht hin ca Rand v Torm (2012) khi phn tch da
trn s liu t hai cuc iu tra nm 2007 v 2009. Hai tc gi ch ra rng tnh chnh thc
khng ch tc ng thun chiu n kt qu hot ng ca doanh nghip m cn c tc ng
ci thin iu kin trong hp ng lao ng.
Bng 8.2 m t c cu lc lng lao ng theo t l phn trm tnh trn tng lc lng
lao ng. T trng lao ng chuyn mn, lao ng tham gia sn xut, lao ng vn phng v
cn b kinh doanh tng ln theo quy m ca doanh nghip (c trong nm 2011 v 2013).
Lao ng sn xut chim a s trong lc lng sn xut v t trng ca khu vc ny cc
doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th cao hn khu vc nng thn. Tuy nhin, trong giai
on t 2011-2013, kt qu iu tra cho thy c s st gim v t trng lao ng sn xut
i vi tt c cc nhm quy m v cc khu vc. Xu th ny ngc li vi t trng ca lao
ng qun l khi khu vc ny c mc tng 3% trong giai on ny. S gia tng v t trng
cn b qun l c quan st thy tt c cc nhm doanh nghip.
Bng 8.2: C cu lc lng lao ng phn theo ngh (t l %)
Chung

DN siu nh DN nh

DN va

Thnh th Nng thn Pha Nam

Pha Bc

2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013
Qun l

29,1 32,4 37,6 40,6 11,2 12,0

5,6

6,3

21,1 24,6 34,6 37,8 25,8 27,8 31,5 35,7

Chuyn mn

3,3

3,4

1,6

1,7

7,1

7,8

8,0

8,1

5,6

5,3

1,8

2,0

4,1

4,1

2,8

2,9

Vn phng

1,6

1,6

0,6

0,6

3,7

4,0

4,9

5,2

2,8

2,7

0,8

0,8

2,1

2,0

1,3

1,3

Kinh doanh

2,8

2,3

2,2

1,5

4,1

4,3

3,6

3,8

4,0

3,2

1,9

1,7

4,1

3,1

1,9

1,7

Dch v

0,7

0,8

0,3

0,5

1,4

1,5

1,8

2,3

1,0

1,1

0,4

0,6

0,9

1,1

0,5

0,6

Sn xut

62,3 59,3 57,7 54,9 72,1 70,1 75,5 73,8 65,3 62,8 60,3 56,8 62,8 61,7 62,0 57,5

Hc vic

0,2

S quan st
(DN)

0,2

0,1

0,2

0,4

0,4

0,5

0,5

0,1

0,3

0,2

0,2

0,2

1.980 1.980 1.371 1.428 496

457

118

95

815

818 1.170 1.162 843

0,2

0,1

0,2

843 1.142 1.137

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong tng lc lng lao ng, mu cn bng. 7 doanh nghip khng tr li cu hi trong nm
2013 v 4 doanh nghip khng tr li trong nm 2011.

Cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc c hiu l cc doanh nghip khng c M s doanh nghip v M s thu.

- 69 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Cc ngnh ngh khc nh chuyn mn cng i hi lao ng c k nng cao dng


nh khng thay i vi t trng chin 3,35% tng lc lng lao ng. Cc ngnh ngh yu
cu mc k nng trung bnh nh vn phng cng duy tr t l n nh. Mt s gim i i
vi t l cn b kinh doanh trong nm 2013 so vi 2011 m ch yu l din ra cc doanh
nghip siu nh. C s tng ln t trng lao ng dch v nm 2013 so vi nm 2011 m c
th l do s thay i ng k ti cc doanh nghip quy m va mc d nhm ngh ny ch
chim mt t l nh trong lc lng sn xut.
iu tra ngi lao ng cho thy rng cc dch chuyn ngnh ngh thng thc s
din ra v s thay i ny c trnh by ti Bng 8.3. Trong s cc lao ng hin ang nm
gi v tr qun l ti doanh nghip, trn 30% trong s ny l lao ng sn xut 19,3% khng
lm vic v ch 18,2% l cn b qun l trong iu tra nm 2011. iu ny ch ra rng v tr
qun l khng i hi kinh nghim c th. Nhng pht hin ny cng ch ra kh nng thay
i trong chc nng ca cng vic. Tuy vy, dng nh lao ng sn xut v lao ng
chuyn mn l nhng ngi c xu hng tip tc chn cng vic cng ngh vi cng vic
h ang lm cao nht khi h c s thay i v tr vic lm.
Bng 8.3: Ma trn chuyn dch ngh nghip
Ngh nghip hin ti
Ngh nghip trc y
Qun l
Chuyn mn
Vn phng
Kinh doanh
Dch v
Sn xut
Khng lm vic
S lng quan st (L)

Qun l

Chuyn mn Vn phng Kinh doanh

Dch v

Sn xut

34

(18,2)

(1,4)

(0,0)

(1,8)

(0,0)

(0,6)

26

61

16

12

(13,9)

(41,5)

(11,1)

(4,4)

(4,3)

(1,3)

17

25

43

12

(9,1)

(17,0)

(29,9)

(10,6)

(4,3)

(0,9)

13

32

(4,3)

(3,4)

(9,0)

(28,3)

(4,3)

(0,6)

16

17

(3,7)

(2,0)

(6,3)

(4,4)

(22,9)

(1,9)

59

20

21

22

610

(31,6)

(6,1)

(13,9)

(18,6)

(31,4)

(67,0)

36

42

43

36

23

253

(19,3)

(28,6)

(29,9)

(31,9)

(32,9)

(27,8)

187

147

144

113

70

910

Ghi ch: Da trn iu tra v ngi lao ng. Tng s ngi c iu tra l 1,478. T l phn trm trong ngoc.

V tnh n nh ca lc lng lao ng, Bng 8.4 trnh by s thay i v lao ng ti


cc trong ton b mu. T l lao ng c tuyn dng nm 2013 chim khong 5% tng
lc lng lao ng nhng c ti 10% s lao ng li di khi cc doanh nghip ny. Trung
bnh t l lao ng di khi doanh nghip iu tra cao gp 2 ln s lao ng mi ti y, tuy
nhin tnh trng ny khng ging nhau cc nhm doanh nghip v cc khu vc. Cc doanh
nghip thuc khu vc chnh thc, doanh nghip thnh th v pha Bc mt i s lao ng

- 70 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

gp i so vi s h tuyn dng mi trong khi cc doanh nghip thuc cc khu vc v


a bn khc c t l lao ng ri i thp hn. Trong khi cc doanh nghip siu nh c tnh
n nh v lao ng tng ng vi tnh hnh chung th cc doanh nghip quy m va li l
nhm c t l tuyn dng mi v t l lao ng ri khi doanh nghip l tng ng nhau.
Trong s cc lao ng ri khi doanh nghip, khong s l t nguyn v 20% l
do b sa thi. Thc t ny rt khc so vi nhng g din ra nm 2001 khi m khong 70%
s lao ng ri i khi doanh nghip l t nguyn v ch c 4% trong s l b sa thi
(CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012). Cc nguyn nhn i vi vic ri b cng
vic l tng ng gia cc nhm quy m v cc khu vc. Khu vc nng thn v phi chnh
thc c t l lao ng b sa thi trung bnh cao hn tng i so vi khu vc thnh th v
khu vc chnh thc.
Bng 8.4: Tnh n nh ca lc lng lao ng
Chung

Siu
nh

Nh

Va

Thnh
th

Nng
thn

Chnh
thc

Phi
chnh
thc

Pha
Nam

Pha
Bc

T l tuyn mi

5,3

4,1

8,2

8,9

6,0

4,8

6,6

2,2

5,6

5,1

T l di DN

9,7

9,5

10,6

8,7

13,6

6,8

12,3

3,1

7,4

11,5

T nguyn

50,7

49,8

52,9

48,1

45,9

56,5

51,0

48,4

49,7

51,7

B sa thi

19,8

20,2

19,7

18,8

18,0

22,0

19,2

25,4

20,3

19,4

Ngh hu

1,7

0,4

1,9

5,0

2,8

0,5

1,9

0,5

1,1

2,3

m au

1,6

1,0

1,6

3,3

1,9

1,3

1,7

0,9

1,9

1,3

Cht

0,4

0,6

0,3

0,4

0,6

0,3

0,4

0,9

0,3

0,6

Nguyn nhn
khc

23,8

25,0

22,7

23,3

29,7

16,7

24,0

22,1

25,1

22,6

Trong

S quan st

(2.461) (1.763) (566) (132) (1.062) (1.399) (1.767) (694) (1.059) (1.402)

Ghi ch: Mu khng cn bng. T l phn trm trong tng lc lng lao ng.

8.3 Gio dc, o to, iu kin lm vic v phng php tuyn dng

C phi c cu lc lng lao ng ph thuc vo la chn ca cc doanh nghip hn


l do thiu lao ng ph hp hay khng l vn cn xem xt. Bng 8.5 cho thy khong
9% tng s cc doanh nghip gp kh khn trong vic tuyn dng cc lao ng c k nng
ph hp trong nm 2012 v 67% trong s cc doanh nghip ny cho rng nguyn nhn chnh
l do thiu cc lao ng c k nng nh yu cu. So snh vi nm 2011 th t l cc
doanh nghip c thu lao ng thp ch bng mt na. Kh khn trong tuyn dng tng ln
ng k theo nhm quy m v khu vc nng thn. Khong 26% cc doanh nghip c quy
m va v 6% cc doanh nghip siu nh cho rng h gp kh khn trong vic tuyn chn
cc lao ng c k nng ph hp. Hn 70% cc doanh nghip quy m nh v va v cc
doanh nghip khu vc nng thn cho rng nguyn nhn chnh ca kh khn trong tuyn
dng l do thiu lao ng c k nng. iu ny l ph hp vi thc t l cc doanh nghip
ln hn v cc doanh nghip khu vc thnh th tng tuyn nhiu hn lao ng chuyn

- 71 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

mn (nh trnh by ti Bng 8.2). Cc kt qu cng ch ra rng mc k nng ca ngi


lao ng khng p ng c yu cu t ra ca cc doanh nghip. Khong 18% s cc
doanh nghip gp kh khn trong vic tuyn lao ng l do mc lng ngh khng p
ng yu cu ca ngi lao ng v khong 12% cho rng iu kin lm vic khng hp dn
l nhng kh khn ch yu. So vi nm 2011 chng ti thy rng khong 2 im phn trm
s doanh nghip gp kh khn trong vic cung cp mc lng cao theo yu cu ca
ngi lao ng. Do t l lao ng c o to l tng i cao, nh trnh by ti Bng 8.8,
nn nguyn nhn gy ra kh khn trong tuyn dng lao ng ch yu l do thiu thng tin v
th trng lao ng hn l nguyn nhn thiu lao ng c tay ngh. iu ny gi rng vic
tng cng h thng thng tin th trng lao ng s em li li ch cho c ngi lao ng
cng nh cc doanh nghip v c th gip gn kt k nng ca ngi lao ng v yu cu
ca ngnh ngh.
Bng 8.5: Nhng kh khn trong tuyn dng lao ng
Chung

Siu nh

Nh

Va

Thnh th Nng thn

C kh khn

9,0

5,7

15,5

25,8

8,5

9,7

Khng kh khn

56,5

66,0

34,8

22,7

56

57,2

Thiu lao ng c k nng

67,1

56

76,1

76,5

70,9

63,9

Khng p ng mc lng ngh

18,5

24

12,5

17,6

20,4

16,8

iu kin lm vic thiu hp dn

11,7

14

11,4

5,9

8,7

14,3

Kh khn khc

2,7

6,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

5,0

2.461

1.763

566

132

1.062

1.399

(222)

(187)

(167)

(48)

(103)

(119)

Kh khn trong tuyn dng lao ng c


k nng theo yu cu (%)

Nguyn nhn gp kh khn (%)

S lng doanh nghip

Ghi ch: S lng doanh nghip c kh khn khi tuyn dng trong ngoc n. iu tra 2013.

Bng 8.6 th hin phng php tuyn dng lao ng ph bin nht l qua cc mi lin
h phi chnh thc, chim ti trn 60% trong tt c cc phng php tuyn dng.8 Mt s tn
nhim cao i vi quan h c nhn trong tuyn dng lao ng c trnh by i vi ton b
cc doanh nghip phn theo nhm quy m, a bn hot ng v loi hnh doanh nghip, dao
ng t 48% i vi cc doanh nghip quy m va, ti 71% i vi cc doanh nghip quy
m nh. Cc kt qu ny l ph hp vi nhng pht hin ti cuc iu tra nm 2011 (khng
th hin ti y). Doanh nghip c hai khu vc nng thn v thnh th ch yu s dng cc
phng php tuyn dng phi chnh thc v cc doanh nghip thnh th thu ti hn 68%
tng s lao ng qua cc phng thc phi chnh thc. Nhng s liu ny c th vn di
mc thc t cc DNNVV Vit Nam v tuyn dng lao ng qua con ng phi chnh thc
v khong 1/3 s doanh nghip siu nh trong iu tra tr li l khng p dng i vi cu

c bn b/h hng hay nhng ngi lao ng khc v giao tip c nhn gii thiu c hiu l phng
php tuyn dng phi chnh thc.

- 72 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

hi ny. iu ny c th n t mt thc t l ngi lao ng c tuyn dng trong cc


doanh nghip ny l nhng thnh vin trong gia nh v theo quy c trn th thuc vo
nhm c thu phi chnh thc. Cc phng php tuyn dng c nhng ngha khc nhau
trn kha cnh xc nh mc lng ca ngi lao ng. Larsen, Rand v Torm (2011) minh
chng rng lao ng c thu thng qua quan h c nhn hoc cc bin php phi chnh
thc khc nhn c mc lng cao hn ng k so vi mt bng chung.
Bng 8.5 ch ra rng phn ln cc doanh nghip cho thy h gp phi mt s kh
khn trong vic tm kim lao ng vi k nng thch hp. Bng trc gic iu ny c th dn
n vic s c nhiu lao ng c o to ti ch hn. Tuy nhin, Bng 8.7 cho thy khong
20% tng s cc doanh nghip thc hin o to cho lao ng tuyn mi v ch 4% cc doanh
nghip c o to cho lao ng ang lm vic ti doanh nghip mnh. T trng cc doanh
nghip thc hin o to cho ngi lao ng ang tng ln theo quy m ca doanh nghip.
iu ny khng c g ng ngc nhin khi m cc doanh nghip quy m va c ghi nhn l
nhng doanh nghip gp kh khn nht trong vic tuyn dng lao ng c k nng.
Bng 8.6: Cc phng php tuyn dng lao ng
Cc phng php tuyn dng
Chung

Siu
nh

Nh

Va

Thnh
th

Nng
thn

Qung co trn bo

6,7

3,1

13,8

25,8

10,4

4,0

Trao i lao ng

1,8

1,4

3,5

0,8

1,4

2,1

Gii thiu ca bn b/ngi thn hoc ngi


lao ng khc

37

34

48,1

30,3

44,1

31,7

Chnh quyn a phng gii thiu/phn b

1,1

1,0

1,1

2,3

0,8

1,4

Quan h c nhn

23,3

24,3

21,7

15,9

23,4

23,2

Thng qua trung tm dch v vic lm

2,2

0,7

3,9

15,9

3,9

1,0

Khc

2,3

1,5

3,9

6,8

3,0

1,8

Khng p dng

25,5

34,1

4,1

2,3

13,1

34,9

S lng doanh nghip

2.461

1.763

566

132

1.062

1.399

Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2013.

T trng cc doanh nghip cung cp o to cho lao ng mi tuyn dng tng ln


v quy m gia hai cuc iu tra. Trong khi trong nm 2011 ch c 8% s doanh nghip o
to cho lao ng mi tuyn dng th t l ny trong nm 2013 tng ln ti gn 20%. S
gia tng v o to i vi lao ng mi tuyn dng tng ln tt c cc nhm quy m
doanh nghip v cc khu vc. Nhm quy m c mc tng cao nht l doanh nghip quy m
nh vi mc tng gp i so vi nm 2011 v thp hn l cc doanh nghip quy m va vi
mc tng gn 10 im phn trm. T l cc doanh nghip c o to lao ng tuyn mi
tng ti hn bn ln cc doanh nghip siu nh v gn bn ln ti cc doanh nghip thuc
khu vc nng thn ln mc ln lt l 13% v 20%. S gia tng t l doanh nghip o to
cho lao ng mi tuyn dng c th do nhu cu cao hn i vi cc lao ng c k nng
hoc do vic cc doanh nghip tuyn dng lao ng mi t b hn ch v ngun lc hn so

- 73 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

vi cc doanh nghip khng tuyn dng. S liu ca vng iu tra nm 2013 cng ch ra
rng cc doanh nghip thuc cc vng nng thn c kh nng cung cp o to cho ngi
lao ng mi tuyn dng cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th. Kt qu
ny l s thay i ng ghi nhn so vi tnh hnh thc t ca nm 2011.
Bng 8.7 cng cho thy t trng cc doanh nghip c o to cho lao ng ang lm
vic ti doanh nghip gim i trong giai on 2011- 2013. Trong khi c khong 7% s
doanh nghip c iu tra c o to ngi lao ng ang lm vic ti doanh nghip nm
2011 th t l ny gim xung ch cn 4% nm 2013 v mc gn vi mc ca nm
2009 khi ch c 3% s doanh nghip tin hnh o to cho lao ng ang lm vic ti doanh
nghip (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012). Xu hng ny din ra i vi cc
doanh nghip thuc mi nhm quy m v khu vc. Nhn chung, n tng ca kt qu ny l
cc doanh nghip dng nh mun o to i vi cc lao ng tuyn mi hn l i vi
cc lao ng ang lm vic ti doanh nghip. iu ny c th do thc t l nhng ngi lao
ng lm c thi gian nht nh lm cng mt cng vic c c nhng kinh nghim
lm vic v khng cn thit phi o to thm thc hin cc yu cu ca cng vic .
Kt qu ny c tnh ton da trn mu khng cn bng nhng vn cho thy s tng ng
vi mu cn bng.
Bng 8.7: o to lc lng lao ng
Chung

Siu nh

Nh

Va

Thnh th

Nng thn

2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013
o to lao ng mi
tuyn dng

8,3

19,5

2,4

13,2 14,9 32,2 33,8 42,4 11,0 18,8

5,8

20,0

o to lao ng ang
lm vic

6,9

4,0

3,1

1,7

4,1

3,3

12,3

7,8

20,0 15,9 10,0

S lng doanh nghip 2.024 2.365 1.275 1.669 604

564

145

132

4,8

995 1.046 1.029 1.319

Ghi ch: Tt c cc doanh nghip khng tr li khng c a vo trong tnh ton.

Chuyn sang mc o to cho ngi lao ng, Bng 8.8 cho thy c 13% trong
tng s lao ng c iu tra trong module vic lm c bng i hc v t l n gii cao
hn ng k so vi lao ng nam. Cn lu l vic phn chia trnh o to c thay
i so vi cc vng iu tra trc y khi m d liu iu tra ca nm 2013 c phn
thnh nhiu nhm hn nhm phn bit gia cc nhm o to ngh, cao ng v i hc.
So vi mu iu tra nm 2011 (xem CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER, 2012), c s
gia tng nh t trng lao ng khng qua o to trong iu tra nm 2013. Tng t nh
nm 2011, t l lao ng nam gii tt nghip trung hc c s v trung hc ph thng cao
hn so vi lao ng n. Lao ng nam gii cng c th tip nhn cc kin thc v k thut
thng xuyn hn so vi lao ng n m khng cn phi qua cc kha o to chnh thc.
Ngc li lao ng n dng nh c c t l cao hn trong vic ly c cc chng
ch, bng cp ti cc kha o to ngh cc kha o to lao ng chuyn mn th cp
v cc trng cao ng.

- 74 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

So snh vi ton b s ngun lao ng ti Vit Nam vi 6,4% dn s c bng i hc


(GSO, 2013) th t l lao ng c trnh o to cao trong mu iu tra ny l cao hn
ng k. Mu iu tra cng khng theo hng chung ca ton b ngun lao ng i vi s
khc nhau v cp o to hai gii nam v n. Trong khi nam gii c t l c bng i
hc cao hn so vi n gii (GSO, 2013), cc DNNVV c iu tra li c xu hng tuyn
nhiu lao ng n c bng cp hn so vi cc lao ng nam. Do mu iu tra ch bao gm
cc lao ng c tuyn dng trong cc DNNVV thuc khu vc t nhn nn kt qu ny c
th khng mang tnh i din cho ton b lao ng trong cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc
sn xut ti Vit Nam. Dng nh lao ng nam gii c bng cp cao khng th hin ng
mc trong mu iu tra do h c th c tuyn dng ni khc (cc doanh nghip nh
nc hoc doanh nghip khc). Ngc li, lao ng n c trnh cao c th nhiu hn
mc i din trong mu iu tra do h dng nh thng b loi khi cc v tr cao trong cc
doanh nghip nh nc v v vy h chuyn sang tm vic ti cc doanh nghip t nhn. V
vy, bt c kt lun no v trnh o to ca ngi lao ng lin quan n iu tra ny
cn phi tnh n nhng c im trn.
Bng 8.8: Trnh o to
Trnh o to cao nht
Khng
Hon thnh bc tiu hc
Tt nghip trung hc c s
Tt nghip trung hc ph thng
K nng khng c chng ch
o to ngh c bn
o to ngh nng cao
Lao ng chuyn mn su
Cao ng ngh
Cao ng
i hc/sau i hc
S quan st

N
7
(1,1)
30
(4,6)
84
(12,8)
172
(26,3)
55
(8,4)
17
(2,6)
30
(4,6)
67
(10,2)
8
(1,2)
65
(9,9)
119
(18,2)
654

Nam
10
(1,1)
41
(4,5)
167
(18,2)
287
(31,3)
173
(18,9)
26
(2,8)
53
(5,8)
26
(2,8)
23
(2,5)
23
(2,5)
88
(9,6)
917

Tng s
17
(1,1)
71
(4,5)
251
(16,0)
459
(29,2)
228
(14,5)
43
(2,7)
83
(5,3)
93
(5,9)
31
(2,0)
88
(5,6)
207
(13,2)
1.571

Ghi ch: iu tra ngi lao ng. T l phn trm c th hin trong ngoc n.

- 75 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


8.4 Cng on

Theo quy nh ca Lut cng on, lc lng lao ng ti Vit Nam tham gia t chc
cng on c s mang tnh t nguyn v ng gp ph thnh vin cng on l 1% mc lng
thng. Mc ph thnh vin c th do tng c nhn ng hoc c th do doanh nghip thay mt
ngi lao ng ng v trong trng hp doanh nghip ng cho ngi lao ng th khon
ng gp s t ng tr vo tin lng ca ngi lao ng tham gia cng on. so snh
kt qu ca iu tra nm 2013 vi cc kt qu iu tra cc vng trc , chng ti tp trung
vo cc doanh nghip thuc nhm quy m nh v va v h c s lao ng t 10 ngi tr
ln. Cc doanh nghip c s lao ng di 10 ngi s b loi ra khi mu phn tch v kt
qu thu c trnh by ti Bng 8.9. Da trn mu khng cn bng, c khong 30% cc doanh
nghip c cng on c s trong iu tra nm 2013. S hin din ca t chc cng on c s
l rt khc nhau gia hai nhm quy m dao ng t 20% nhm quy m nh n 76%
nhm quy m va. S hin din ca t chc cng on tng ln c hai nhm quy m nh
v quy m va so vi nm 2011. Chng ti nhn thy rng c nhiu doanh nghip hn c
khu vc nng thn cng nh khu vc thnh th c t chc cng on so vi trc y vi t l
khu vc nng thn tng nhanh hn nhng vn mc thp hn so vi khu vc thnh th. Xu
th gia tng s hin din ca t chc cng on cng c th hin khi phn chia theo khu
vc pha Bc v pha Nam trong cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc pha Nam c t l cc
doanh nghip c t chc cng on cao hn cc doanh nghip ti khu vc pha Bc. Kt qu
cng cho thy dng nh cc doanh nghip c ch s hu hoc ngi qun l l nam gii t
c kh nng c t chc cng on c s hn so vi cc doanh nghip do ch s hu hoc
ngi qun l l n gii. T l cc doanh nghip c ch s hu hoc ngi qun l l n gii
c t chc cng on c s tng im 7% trong giai on 2011- 2013 trong khi t l ny ti
cc doanh nghip c ch s hu hoc ngi qun l l nam gii ch tng bng 1/3 so vi
nhm n gii. Kt qu trn c gi nguyn khi phn tch mu cn bng.
Bng 8.9: T l doanh nghip c cng on c s v thnh vin ca cng on c s
Mu khng cn bng
T l doanh nghip

Mu cn bng

T l lao ng

T l doanh nghip

T l lao ng

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

Chung

26,0

30,8

77,5

79,8

25,5

30,1

77,5

80,3

DN nh

16,3

20,3

76,5

75,7

15,2

19,8

74,8

75,0

DN va

66,9

75,8

77,4

81,1

67,8

66,9

78,9

83,0

Thnh th

34,0

39,3

75,8

79,8

33,5

38,4

75,7

79,8

Nng thn

13,1

17,2

84,6

79,9

13,7

16,8

83,9

82,1

Pha Nam

33,9

36,9

72,6

78,1

33,0

36,8

72,7

77,4

Pha Bc

19,5

25,3

84,6

82,0

19,1

23,9

84,8

84,4

CSH l nam gii

21,3

23,1

82,0

81,5

21,2

23,3

82,1

81,7

CSH l n

32,1

39,2

73,7

78,8

31,3

37,8

73,2

79,4

S quan st

757

698

204

236

615

558

163

186

Ghi ch: Cc kt qu c tnh ton trn mu loi tr cc doanh nghip siu nh.

- 76 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Khi c s tn ti ca t chc cng on, lc lng lao ng tham gia vo cc t chc


ny l tng i cao vi t l khong 80% ngi lao ng l thnh vin trong t chc cng
on nm 2013. Theo truyn thng, t trng lao ng trung bnh l thnh vin ca t chc
cng on cc doanh nghip pha Bc s cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc
pha Nam. Cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng thn v thnh th c t l lao ng tham
gia t chc cng on tng ng nhau. T l lao ng tham gia t chc cng on cc
doanh nghip c ch s hu l nam gii cao hn so vi t l lao ng tham gia t chc cng
on cc doanh nghip do n lm ch s hu c hai cuc iu tra. So vi nm 2011,
chng ti thy c s gia tng v t l ngi lao ng tham gia t chc cng on c s trong
iu tra nm 2013. Mong mun c s gia tng t l ngi lao ng tham gia t chc cng
on c s l tt yu bi iu s mang n iu kin lm vic tt hn, tin lng cao hn
v m bo phc li x hi tt hn cho ngi lao ng. Tuy nhin, s gia tng t l trung
bnh ny b lu m bi s thay i cp quy m v khu vc hot ng. Trong khi lc lng
lao ng tham gia vo t chc cng on cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th tng
ln th t l ny khu vc nng thn gim i. Tng t, t l lao ng tham gia t chc
cng on pha Nam tng ln nhng li gim i khu vc pha Bc. Cc doanh nghip c
ch s hu l n c thin hng gia tng t l lao ng tham gia t chc cng on trong
khi cc doanh nghip c ch s hu l nam cho thy s st gim nh t l lao ng tham
gia t chc ny. Khng c s khc nhau ng k trong kt qu tnh ton gia mu khng cn
bng v mu cn bng ngoi tr trng hp so snh v thnh vin cng on theo nhm quy
m doanh nghip. Trong khi s lng thnh vin cng on tng ln cc doanh nghip
quy m va th c s gim st i vi cc doanh nghip quy m nh mu khng cn bng.
Tuy nhin, trong mu cn bng cho thy c s gia tng nh s thnh vin ca t chc cng
on ti cc doanh nghip quy m nh.
Kt qu tng th ti Bng 8.9 cho thy mt s gia tng t trng thnh vin cng on
trong cc doanh nghip c iu tra. By gi chng ti xem xt s thay i c th hn v
so snh t trng cc doanh nghip c t chc cng on v t trng doanh nghip khng
cn t chc cng on. Bng 8.10 cho thy ch 1,7% cc doanh nghip trong mu cn
bng chuyn t trng thi c t chc cng on nm 2011 sang trng thi khng cn t
chc ny nm 2013. Ngc li, c 5,2% cc doanh nghip chuyn t trng thi khng c
t chc cng on nm 2011 sang trng thi c t chc cng on nm 2013. Xu hng
gia tng vic thnh lp cc t chc cng on ti cc doanh nghip c nhn thy ti tt
c cc nhm quy m v khu vc. i vi trng hp ca cc doanh nghip quy m nh
khi c s khc nhau ng k trong kt qu c tnh ton t mu cn bng v mu khng
cn bng, chng ti cho rng cc doanh nghip nh tri qua qu trnh gia tng s lng
thnh vin cng on vi tc t khng c t chc cng on sang c t chc cng on
mc 2,6%.

- 77 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 8.10: Bin ng ca t chc cng on c s (t l %)
Chung

Nh

Va

Thnh th

Nng thn Pha Nam Pha Bc

DN khng c cng on

1,7

1,8

1,0

1,0

2,9

2,6

0,8

DN c t chc cng on

5,2

4,7

7,1

4,2

6,9

5,7

4,7

S lng doanh nghip

482

384

98

307

175

229

253

Ghi ch: Mu cn bng. Do cc doanh nghip siu nh b loi khi mu nghin cu, s lng quan st cn li l 1.455 DN.

Khong 35% s lao ng trong mu iu tra ngi lao ng tr li rng li ch quan


trng nht khi tr thnh thnh vin cng on l c m bo v phc li x hi. Tip
theo khong 27% cho rng li ch chnh ca vic tham gia t chc cng on l nhm tng
kh nng m bo vic lm. Khong 10% s lao ng cho rng l thnh vin cng on s
to s an ton ti ni lm vic v 10% khc cho rng l thnh vin cng on s c s n
nh v mc lng tt hn. V hn 45% s lao ng trong mu tr li rng li ch quan
trng nht ca vic l cng on vin l m bo phc li x hi nn dng nh l thnh
vin cng on c tng quan thun chiu vi vic nhn c phc li x hi ln hn.
C s khc nhau ng k v kt qu gia cuc iu tra 2011 v 2013 xt kha cnh ai
lm ch tch cng on. Hnh 8.2 cho thy khong 34% ch tch cng on c s l ngi
qun l ti doanh nghip, t l ny tng ng vi t l ca nm 2011. C 37% ch tch
cng on l ngi lao ng c thm nin. y l s thay i ng k nht so vi nm 2011
khi c ti 44% cc ch tch cng on thi im l ngi lao ng c thm nim. T l
ch tch cng on do ngi qun l ngun nhn lc (trng b phn nhn s) c s tng
ln so vi nm 2011, t mc trn 12% ln mc 16% nm 2013. Nhng thay i ny cho
thy s tht li v mt qun l ti t chc cng on c s so vi nm 2011 khi m t l ch
tch cng on l cn b qun l tng ln trong khi t l ngi lao ng lm ch tch gim
i. Theo hng ny th c s nghi ng y v tnh hiu qu ca t chc cng on trong
vic bo v quyn li ca ngi lao ng v m bo cc phc li x hi v vic lm cng
nh s an ton ti ni lm vic ca ngi lao ng.
Hnh 8.2: Ch tch cng on
5,49 5,06

2,95

Ch doanh nghip
C quan h vi ch doanh nghip

33,76
36,71

Lao ng c thm nin


Trng phng nhn s
Cn b qun l (khng phi ch DN)
Khc

16,03

- 78 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


8.5 Xy dng mc lng, phc li x hi v hp ng lao ng

Trong phn ny chng ti s phn tch v mc lng i vi ngi lao ng c iu


tra trong mu iu tra ngi lao ng nm 2013. Mc lng danh ngha trung bnh l
4.700.000 ng/ngi/thng. Mc lng danh ngha ca nam gii l 4.970.000 ng
/ngi/thng v ca lao ng n l 4.374.000 ng/ngi/thng.9Chnh lch v lng theo
gii tnh xy ra tt c cc nhm ngh nh m t trong Hnh 8.3. S chnh lch v lng
gia lao ng nam v n c bit cao nhm cn b kinh doanh v lao ng chuyn mn.
Lao ng n trong lnh vc sn xut v dch v c mc lng thp nht. Cng vi s tng
ln mt cht t l lao ng n, iu ny cho thy vic cc DNNVV tuyn nhiu lao ng n
hn nhm gim tng qu lng. Hnh 8.3 cho thy dng nh c mt mc lng nht nh
tn ti i vi tt c cc nhm ngh so vi hai nhm cn li l lao ng sn xut v dch v.
Hnh 8.3: Lng thng bnh qun nm 2013 (n v 1.000 VND)
6000
5000
4000
Chung

3000

N
Nam

2000
1000
0
Qun l

Chuyn mn Vn phng Kinh doanh

Dch v

Sn xut

Ghi ch: Cc quan st nm ngoi mc phn v 99% s b loi tnh n yu t ngoi vi. D liu l t
module iu tra ngi lao ng 2013.

Hnh 8.4 th hin mc lng trung bnh nm 2011 v 2013 theo cc nhm ngh. Mc
lng thc t bnh qun hng thng l 1.535.000 ng trong nm 2013 v 1.437.000 ng
nm 2011. Nh vy, mc lng thc t tng ln khong 7% trong vng 2 nm. iu ny
c ngha rng lng thc t trung bnh tng khong trn 3% mi nm trong giai on 20112013. Hnh 8.4 cng cho thy rng mc lng thc t tng tt c cc nhm ngh nghip.

Cc quan st nm ngoi mc phn v 99% s b loi tnh n yu t ngoi vi.

- 79 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Hnh 8.4: Mc lng thng thc t bnh qun theo ngh (n v: 1.000 VND)
2500
2000
1500
2011

1000

2013

500
0
Qun l

Chuyn
mn

Vn phng Kinh doanh

Dch v

Sn xut

Chung

Ghi ch: Lng thng thc t c tnh n yu t gim pht s dng ch s CPI (2005=100) ca IMF.

Hi quy n gin v tin lng da trn cc c tnh ca c ngi lao ng v doanh


nghip vi cc yu t xc nh mc lng truyn thng c trnh by ti Bng 8.11. Ct 1
ca bng ny cho thy c s chnh lch cao hn trong mc lng ca tt c cc nhm ngh
so vi nhm cng nhn sn xut. iu ny l ph hp vi pht hin ca Larsen, Rand v
Torm (2011). Ct 2 Bng 8.11 m t kt qu khi cc bin kim sot lin quan n c tnh
ca doanh nghip c a vo m hnh cho thy c s khc bit (cao hn) c ngha v
mc lng gia nhm qun l v lao ng chuyn mn so vi nhm lao ng sn xut.
Nhm cn b kinh doanh, dch v v nhn vin vn phng khng cho thy s khc bit c
ngha thng k so vi nhm lao ng sn xut. Cc ch s dn bo o lng trnh o to
thuc nhm Tt nghip PTTH tr ln v Cng nhn k thut c ngha v mt thng k
c hai c lng (ct 1 v 2). Do nhm trnh o to tt nghip trung hc c s v thp
hn c ly lm nhm c s nn h s dng ca tt c cc nhm trong bin o to cho
thy rng trnh o to c quan h thun chiu vi mc lng. Kt qu ny l ph hp
vi pht hin ca Hering v Poncet (2010).
Bng 8.11 cng cho thy rng o to trong qu trnh lm vic c quan h thun chiu
vi mc lng. Tuy nhin, iu ny c th l do cc doanh nghip tin hnh o to cho
ngi lao ng thng c kh nng chi tr mc lng cao hn. Thng thng th tui ca
ngi lao ng cng l nhn t quan trng xc nh mc lng, tuy vy kt qu c lng
y khng cho thy mi quan h c ngha thng k gia hai yu t ny. Tuy nhin, thi
gian lm vic cho doanh nghip li c quan h thun chiu vi mc lng ca ngi lao
ng. Nh k vng, kt qu cho thy c mi quan h ngc chiu gia bnh phng s nm
lm vic ti doanh nghip v mc lng, iu ny cho thy rng mc lng s t nh
tui trung nin v gim dn sau . Kt qu khng cho thy mc lng tng ln cng vi
o to b sung v mi quan h gia mc lng v o to khng cho thy mc quan
trng v mt thng k. Mt iu th v l nhng ngi lao ng c tuyn dng qua

- 80 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

phng php phi chnh thc (quan h c nhn hoc c bn b/ngi thn gii thiu)
dng nh c mc lng cao hn. Bin s ny ch c ngha thng k trong c lng
ct 2. Cui cng, kt qu cng khng nh tn ti s chnh lch quan trng v mc lng
theo gii tnh v iu ny cng c kt qu nu ti Hnh 8.2. Thm vo , chnh lch mc
lng theo gii tnh thng xy ra ti cc nc ang pht trin v pht hin ny ph hp vi
nhiu nghin cu trn thc t (Vu, 2012; Hering v Poncet, 2010; Liu, 2004).
Bng 8.11: Cc yu t quyt nh mc lng
Bin ph thuc: ln (lng thc t)

(1)

Gii tnh (nam=1)

(2)

0,158***

(2,88)

0,017

(0,36)

Tui ca ngi lao ng

-0,015

(-0,94)

-0,017

(-1,10)

Bnh phng tui ngi L/100

0,011

(0,54)

0,017

(0,85)

Thi gian lm vic ca ngi lao ng ti doanh nghip

0,014**

(2,20)

0,013**

(2,06)

Bnh phng s nm lm vic ti DN/100

-0,001**

(-2,17)

-0,001**

(-2,04)

Qun l

0,512***

(6,36)

0,340***

(4,83)

Chuyn mn

0,403***

(5,92)

0,191***

(3,16)

Kinh doanh (bn hng)

0,326***

(4,39)

0,091

(1,35)

Dch v/vn phng

0,211***

(3,09)

0,020

(0,31)

Tt nghip THPT hoc cao hn (c=1)

0,331***

(3,77)

0,174**

(2,00)

Cng nhn k thut (c=1)

0,417***

(4,57)

0,242***

(2,68)

o to trong thi gian lm vic (c=1)

0,030

(0,47)

-0,008

(-0,12)

Tuyn dng phi chnh thc (c=1)

-0,049

(-0,98)

0,108**

(2,01)

-0,219

(-1,52)

Gii tnh ca ch doanh nghip (nam =1)

-0,136***

(-2,93)

Quy m doanh nghip (log)

0,129***

(5,45)

T trng lao ng n trong tng s lao ng

-0,007***

(-4,64)

0,165**

(2,31)

M s thu (c=1)

DN c xut khu
R-squared

0,080

0,230

S lng quan st

1.336

1.336

Bin gi ngnh

Khng

Bin gi v hnh thc php l

Khng

Bin gii a bn (tnh)

Khng

Ghi ch: Bin ph thuc: Log lng thc t. Lng c tnh n yu t gim pht qua s dng ch s CPI
(2005=100) ca IMF. c lng da trn mc lng thng. Ch 1.295 lao ng cho bit mc lng thng. M
hnh hi quy OLS. i vi trnh o to v ngh nghip, bin c s (tham chiu) tng ng l nhm trung hc
c s v lao ng sn xut. *, ** v *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10 %, 5 %, v 1 %. Cc quan st nm ngoi
mc phn v 99% c loi b. Thng k-t da trn sai s chun gp c th hin trong ngoc n.

Ti ct 2, mt s bin lin quan n c tnh ca doanh nghip c a vo m hnh


v a s cc c tnh c nh hng quan trng n mc lng. Quy m ca doanh nghip
c quan h thun chiu c ngha thng k i vi mc lng, iu ny ph hp vi cc
pht hin ph bin l tin lng c lin quan thun chiu vi quy m ca doanh nghip
(Soderbom et al., 2005). Cc doanh nghip c ch l nam gii c quan h ngc chiu c
ngha thng k vi mc lng ca ngi lao ng. Thm vo , t l lao ng n trong lc

- 81 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

lng sn xut cng c quan h ngc chiu vi mc lng. Kt qu cng cho thy tnh
chnh thc dng nh c quan h ngc chiu vi mc lng tuy nhin h s c lng ca
bin ny khng cho thy ngha v mt thng k. Cui cng, ch s i din cho tnh trng
xut khu ca doanh nghip c a vo m hnh. Kt qu cho thy c mi quan h thun
chiu c ngha thng k gia doanh nghip xut khu v mc lng. Kt qu ny ph hp
vi cc nghin cu trc y vi pht hin rng cc doanh nghip c xut khu thng c
kh nng ln trong vic chi tr mc lng cao hn cho ngi lao ng lm vic ti doanh
nghip (Bernard et al., 1995). Kt qu ny li ngc vi pht hin ca Vu (2012) khi thc
hin phn tch ca mnh da trn d liu t cc DNNVV Vit Nam v thy rng mc lng
cao hn ti cc doanh nghip xut khu s khng cn khi cc c tnh ca doanh nghip v
ngi lao ng c a vo m hnh hi quy.
V c s xc nh lng, Bng 8.12 cho thy phng thc ph bin nht xc nh
mc lng l thng qua m phn c nhn. Kh nng chi tr ca doanh nghip v mc
lng ti cc doanh nghip ngoi nh nc khc cng l nhn t quan trng trong qu trnh
xc nh mc lng. So vi nm 2011, c s gia tng mt cht t l cc doanh nghip xc
nh lng qua m phn vi c nhn ngi lao ng (t 45% nm 2011 ln 47% nm
2013). Tng t, t l cc doanh nghip xc nh lng qua mc lng ca cc doanh
nghip trong nc khc cng tng ln, t 18% nm 2011 ln 19% nm 2013. Trong iu tra
nm 2013, t l cc doanh nghip cn c vo kh nng chi tr xc nh mc lng thp
hn: t l cc doanh nghip xc nh mc lng da trn mc lng ca cc doanh nghip
ngoi nh nc khc gim t 27% nm 2011 xung cn 25% nm 2013. Xu hng ny din
ra tt c cc nhm quy m v khu vc.
Bng 8.12: C s xc nh mc lng (n v: %)
Chung

Siu
nh

Nh

Va

Mc lng ti cc doanh nghip ngoi


nh nc khc ti a phng

19,4

17,8

21,0

27,3

19,4

Mc lng ca cc doanh nghip nh


nc ti a phng

1,8

1,4

2,5

3,0

Do c quan nh nc c thm quyn


xy dng

4,4

3,0

6,4

Mc lng trong ngnh nng nghip

1,0

1,1

Tha thun c nhn

47,1

Kh nng chi tr ca doanh nghip


Khc
S lng doanh nghip

Thnh Nng
th
thn

Pha
Nam

Pha
Bc

19,4

15,7

23,0

1,7

1,9

2,0

1,6

9,8

6,8

1,9

5,8

3,2

1,1

0,0

0,7

1,4

1,0

1,1

53,0

38,9

28,0

41,7

52,8

44,7

49,5

25,2

22,5

29,5

31,8

29,0

21,3

30,4

20,3

0,9

1,1

0,7

0,0

0,7

1,2

0,5

1,3

1.918

1.220

566

132

981

937

938

980

Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2013.

So vi nm 2011, t l cc doanh nghip c cc phc li cho ngi lao ng gim 1


im phn trm, t 57% nm 2011 xung cn 56% nm 2013. Bng 8.13 trnh by cc loi

- 82 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

phc li x hi i vi ngi lao ng. Li ch ph bin nht l ph cp thai sn, chim ti


52% s doanh nghip. Li ch ph bin th hai l ngh m v tip theo l chi tr t tut v
bi thng tai nn trc tip hoc bnh ngh nghip. Cc DNNVV Vit Nam t chi tr mt
ln cho ngi ngh hu.
Bng 8.13: Phc li x hi (t l %)
Chung

Siu
nh

Nh

Va

Thnh Nng
th
thn

Pha
Nam

Pha
Bc

ng bo him x hi

25,9

7,7

62,0

98,5

39,7

14,8

33,7

19,7

ng bo him y t

26,0

7,8

61,8

99,2

39,1

15,5

34,2

19,5

Bo him tht nghip

20,8

4,9

50,0

93,9

33,8

10,3

26,8

16,0

Bi thng trc tip cho tai nn lao


ng hoc cho bnh ngh nghip

27,4

13,5

54,8

84,1

44,5

13,7

36,9

19,9

Ngh m

30,6

14,9

60,4

91,7

47,3

16,8

41,9

21,5

Ngh thai sn c tr lng

26,4

9,0

58,4

93,9

41,3

14,0

34,8

19,6

Ngh thai sn khng c tr lng

51,9

38,8

77,2

98,5

72,1

35,2

69,5

37,6

Ngh php hng nm c tr lng

27,0

12,5

53,5

87,1

43,9

13,0

40,5

16,0

Tin lng hu tr 1 ln

17,5

4,6

39,8

76,3

30,7

6,6

23,9

12,4

T tut

29,3

15,3

53,8

92,4

46,4

15,2

40,6

20,2

Ghi ch: T l cc quan st thiu thng tin kh ph bin i vi nhng cu hi lin quan n phc li x hi.Cc
doanh nghip thiu thng tin s b loi ra khi d liu tnh ton theo tng nhm. iu tra nm 2013.

Xem xt phn b phc li x hi theo quy m doanh nghip, kt qu cho thy r rng
rng t l chi tr tng ln theo quy m doanh nghip. T l cc doanh nghip va chi tr tt
c cc khon phc li x hi mc rt cao, vt tri so vi mc trung bnh. C s gia tng
ln v t l chi tr phc li x hi gia nhm doanh nghip siu nh v cc doanh nghip
nh, ngoi tr i vi trng hp chi tr ngh thai sn cho ngi khng c tr lng c t
l kh cao. Tip theo, Bng 8.13 cng cho thy rng cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng
thn c kh nng chi tr phc li x hi thp hn so vi cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc
thnh th. Tnh trng tng t cng din ra khi so snh khu vc pha Bc vi khu vc pha
Nam. iu ny ph hp vi quan st c c Bng 8.9 vi pht hin rng cc doanh
nghip pha Nam c xu hng thnh lp t chc cng on cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip
pha Bc.
T l doanh nghip ng bo him x hi, bo him y t v bo him tht nghip
tng khong 4 im phn trm so vi s liu iu tra nm 2011. T l doanh nghip chi tr
cho ngh m ca ngi lao ng cng tng thm 3 im phn trm trong nm 2013 so vi
mc ca nm 2011. Mc khc, t l cc doanh nghip c bi thng cho ngi lao ng b
tai nn v ngi b bnh ngh nghip t 35% nm 2011 xung cn 27% nm 2013. Tng
t, t l doanh nghip tr lng hu mt ln cho ngi lao ng cng gim 5 im phn
trm so vi nm 2011. T l cc doanh nghip c chi tr cho ngi ngh thai sn khng
lng gim t 57% nm 2011 xung cn 52% nm 2013, tuy nhin t l ny i vi nhng

- 83 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

ngi ngh c tr lng l gi nguyn. Da trn nhng thay i phn tch trn y v chi tr
phc li x hi cho ngi lao ng trong cc doanh nghip c mt s hnh thc chi tr tng
ln v mt s hnh thc gim i, c th thy rt ra rng c nhng ci thin nht nh v iu
kin lm vic trong cc DNNVV Vit Nam so vi nm 2011.
Hnh 8.5: Phc li x hi phn theo gii tnh ca ch s hu
hoc ngi qun l DN (t l %)
Ch DN l n

Ch DN l nam

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
T tut

Tin lng hu tr 1 ln

Ngh php hng nm c


tr lng

Ngh thai sn khng c


tr lng

Ngh thai sn c tr lng

Ngh m

Bi thng trc tip cho tai


nn lao ng hoc cho bnh
ngh nghip

Bo him tht nghip

ng bo him y t

ng bo him x hi

Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2013. Cc doanh nghip thiu thng tin s b loi.

Mc ph bin ca cc phc li x hi cng khc nhau xt v gii tnh ca ch s


hu cc doanh nghip iu tra. Hnh 8.5 ch ra rng t l cc doanh nghip c ch s hu
hoc ngi qun l l n thng c khuynh hng chi tr tt c cc khon phc li x hi
cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip c ch s hu hoc ngi qun l l nam gii. Kt qu ny
l tng ng vi kt qu ca Rand v Tarp (2011) khi cc tc gi kt lun rng cc
DNNVV c ch s hu l n thng c kh nng chi tr cho ngi lao ng nhng khon
phc li ngoi lng, v d nh chi tr cho ngh php, chi tr cho bo him y t.
Tip theo chng ti xem xt mc ph bin ca cc hp ng chnh thc trong cc
DNNVV. Hnh 8.6 cho thy t l trung bnh lao ng thng xuyn lm vic ton thi gian
c hp ng lao ng chnh thc bng vn bn l 27% trong nm 2013. T l trung bnh lao
ng thng xuyn lm vic ton thi gian khc nhau rt ln gia cc nhm quy m v khu
vc. Trong khi gn 91% s lao ng lm vic ti cc doanh nghip va c hp ng lao
ng chnh thc bng vn bn th ch c 11% s lao ng lm vic trong cc doanh nghip
siu nh c k cc hp ng nh vy. Vic s dng hnh thc hp ng chnh thc ph bin
hn cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc thnh th vi 40% s doanh nghip k hp ng lao
ng vi ngi lao ng trong khi t l ny cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng thn ch
l 17%.

- 84 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Hnh 8.6: Hp ng chnh thc phn theo gii tnh ca ch s hu hoc ngi qun l DN
N

Nam

Chung

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Chung

Siu nh

Nh

Va

Thnh th Nng thn Pha Nam

Pha Bc

Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2013. Cc doanh nghip thiu thng tin s b loi.

T l cc doanh nghip c k hp ng vi ngi lao ng pha Nam l 33% cao


hn so vi cc doanh nghip pha Bc vi t l ch l 23%. Cc doanh nghip c ch lao
ng hoc ngi qun l l n thng c lc lng lao ng c chnh thc ha vi vic
k hp ng lao ng chnh thc cho 35% tng s lao ng trong doanh nghip ca mnh.
T l ny l ln hn ng k so vi cc doanh nghip c ch s hu hoc ngi qun l l
nam gii vi t l ch c 20%. Do hp ng lao ng chnh thc l quan trng trong vic
m bo cc phc li x hi cho ngi lao ng, cc kt qu trn l rt ph hp vi pht
hin rng cc ch s hu hoc ngi qun l l n c kh nng chi tr phc li x hi cao
hn cho ngi lao ng. Kt qu ny rt quan trng trong vic gii thch mi quan h ngc
chiu gia doanh nghip c ch s hu l nam gii v mc lng ca ngi lao ng m t
ti Bng 8.11. Xu chui cc thng tin ny cho php chng ti c th kt lun rng cc
doanh nghip c ch s hu hoc ngi qun l l nam gii cung cp cc iu kin lm vic
km hn so vi cc doanh nghip c ch s hu hoc ngi qun l l n khi cc doanh
nghip c ch s hu hoc ngi qun l l nam gii ch ngh t l lao ng k hp ng
thp hn, chi tr cc khon phc li x hi t hn v ngh mc lng thp hn.
Hnh 8.5 ch ra rng ch mt b phn trong lc lng lao ng ti cc doanh nghip
c k hp ng chnh thc. By gi chng ta xem xt thi hn hp ng i ti cc
DNNVV Vit Nam. Bng 8.14 cho thy, trung bnh c trn 75% s hp ng lao ng c
k c thi hn trn 12 thng v 42% trong s l nhng hp ng khng thi hn. Cc
doanh nghip siu nh v nh thng ch yu a ra cc ngh thi hn hp ng l v
thi hn trong khi cc doanh nghip quy m va li thng ngh cc hp ng c thi
hn t 1-3 nm. Xt v khu vc hot ng ca doanh nghip, chng ti nhn thy rng so
vi cc doanh nghip khu vc thnh th th cc doanh nghip thuc khu vc nng thn
thng ngh hp ng lao ng khng thi hn cao hn v c t l thp hn cc hp
ng c thi hn di 1 nm.

- 85 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

T trng cc hp ng khng thi hn tng t 37% nm 2011 ln 42% trong nm


2013. Ngc li, t l cc hp ng c thi hn di 3 nm trong giai on ny gim i.
Cc doanh nghip thuc tt c cc nhm quy m v khu vc c xu hng ngh cc hp
ng di hn trong nm 2013 so vi nm 2011.
Bng 8.14: Thi hn hp ng lao ng chnh thc(t l % s lao ng)
Chung

Siu nh

Nh

Va

Thnh th

Nng thn

Hp ng khng xc nh thi hn

42,3

50,3

41,2

35,1

37,6

44,7

Hp ng t 12 36 thng

34,0

30,1

33,8

39,8

30,8

35,7

Hp ng t 3 12 thng

19,7

13,9

22,0

20,6

26,9

16,0

Hp ng di 3 thng

4,0

5,8

3,0

4,5

4,8

3,6

S lng doanh nghip

563

143

312

108

374

189

Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2013. S liu trnh by t l lao ng k hp ng vi thi hn c th.

- 86 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

BO V MI TRNG

Theo ch s Hot ng mi trng nm 2014, kh nng ca Vit Nam trong bo v


mi trng xp thp nht trong cc quc gia ASEAN v ng th 136 trn 178 nc c
phn tch (EPI, 2014). Cc ch s hot ng mi trng xc nh chun nng lc ca mt
quc gia trong bo v sc khe con ngi trc nhng tc ng bt li ca mi trng cng
nh nng lc bo v h sinh thi v ngun ti nguyn thin nhin, tp trung vo cht
lng ngun nc, bin i kh hu, ngun nc, nng nghip, thy sn, rng, a dng sinh
hc v mi trng sng. Trch nhim qun l mi trng l mt phn quan trng ca pht
trin bn vng v ngy cng c xem xt khng ch l trch nhim ca doanh nghip m
cn l mt c hi kinh doanh (OECD, 2005). Do vy, chng ny s xem xt cc hot ng
mi trng ca cc DNNVV Vit Nam. y vn cn l mt vn mi v cha c
nghin cu nhiu Vit Nam. Cc quy nh php lut v vn bn hng dn thi hnh cc
iu kin, trch nhim v ngha vmi trng ca cc DNNVV c a ra gn y v
vn ang trong qu trnh hon thin. Vic thu thp d liu v thc hin cc phn tch v ch
ny bt u t cuc iu tra DNNVV nm 2007, do mt phn ca bo co ny s lu
v nhng g xy ra k t thi im .
Ni dung ca chng ny bao gm cc vn lin quan n Giy chng nhn tiu
chun mi trng (ESC). Khung php l hin nay iu chnh hot ng ca DNNVV v
tng tc ca cc doanh nghip ny vi mi trng Vit Nam c nu trong ba vn bn
php l ch yu sau: (i) Lut Bo v mi trng nm 2005; (ii) Ngh nh 80/2006 hng dn
thi hnh Lut Bo v mi trng v (iii) Ngh nh 29/2011 quy nh chi tit v hng dn thi
hnh mt s iu ca Lut Bo v Mi trng. Theo cc vn bn, cc doanh nghip tin hnh
cc hot ng nht nh no ( nhim), khng phn bit tnh trng php l ca doanh
nghip, phi lp bo co nh gi tc ng mi trng (TM). Cc bo co TM phi c
thm nh bi mt hi ng v c chp thun ca c quan nh nc c lin quan (B TN &
MT, U ban nhn dn cp tnh ty thuc vo loi hnh c th ca d n). Cc doanh nghip
c cp ESC nu p ng cc bin php kim sot nhim mi trng nu trong bo co
TM. Sau khi c cp ESC, doanh nghip c th bt u/tip tc hot ng sn xut kinh
doanh. Ch nhng doanh nghip hot ng tronglnh vc nht nh phi tun theo th tc ny,
v Ngh nh 29/2011 quy nh c th 144 loi hot ng phi tun th cc quy nh trn. Nu
mt doanh nghip hot ng trong mt lnh vc khng nm trong danh sch ny, doanh
nghip khng c ngha vv mt php l phi c bo co TM v ESC, mc d vn c
yu cu k cam kt bo v mi trng. Cn c vo cc hot ng phi lp TM c lit k
trong Ngh nh 29/2011, chng ti loi tr cc doanh nghip phn tch c ng k l nh
cung cp dch v v doanh nghip thuc lnh vc ti ch (ISIC37).
Nh trnh by trong Bng 9.1, ch c 16,2% doanh nghip bo co c ESC trong nm
2013, khng tng ng k so vinm 2011 khi ch khc nhau 0,2 im phn trm. iu ny
cho thy vic tun th php lut mi trng n nh trong hai nm qua. So vi nm 2007 khi
ch c 9% cc DNNVV c phng vn c ESC v n nm 2009 c 13% cc DNVVN c
ESC th nm 2013 suy gim tc tng trng s lng doanh nghip c ESC. S lng

- 87 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

ESC vn mc rt thp ngay c khi mt s doanh nghip trong mu hot ng trong cc


lnh vc khng yu cu phi c ESC.
C s khc bit ng k trong t l cp giy chng nhn gia cc tnh, thnh ph,
TP. H Ch Minh c t l cao nht cc doanh nghip c ESC (27,7%). y cng l tnh
/thnh c t l tng trng cp giy chng nhn mi trng cao nht so vinm 2011. Long
An c t l cao th hai vi 23,5% doanh nghip c ESC. Tip theo, H Ni c 22,3% doanh
nghip c ESC v t l Hi Phng l 18,3%. Cc tnh/thnh cn li c t l thp hn v c
xu hng gim, trong Qung Nam l a phng c t l gim mnh nht khi t l ca
nm 2013 thp hn 45% so vi nm 2011.
Bng 9.1: Chng nhn tiu chun mi trng theo tnh/thnh,
hnh thc php l v quy m doanh nghip (%)

Ton b
Tnh/thnh

Hnh thc php l

Quy m

H Ni
Ph Th
H Ty
Hi Phng
Ngh An
Qung Nam
Khnh Ha
Lm ng
TP. H Ch Minh
Long An
H gia nh
Doanh nghip t nhn
Hp danh/Tp th/Hp tc x
TNHH
C phn
Siu nh
Nh
Va

S quan st

T l doanh nghip c chng nhn


tiu chun mi trng
2011
2013
C hai nm
16,0
16,2
16,1
19,8
22,3
21,1
10,8
7,2
9,0
9,4
6,8
8,1
20,2
18,3
19,3
13,9
8,4
11,2
14,8
8,1
11,4
6,4
18,2
12,1
11,8
7,8
9,8
21,2
27,7
24,5
22,1
23,5
22,8
9,1
6,2
7,6
23,8
30,1
27,0
35,4
33,3
34,5
28,3
33,6
31,0
36,3
41,7
39,2
9,2
7,6
8,4
25,2
33,3
29,0
54,5
58,1
56,2
2.413
2.423
4.836

Phn ln mu ca chng ti bao gm cc doanh nghip h gia nh v cc doanh


nghip ny vn l t kh nng c ESC, bi v vic thc thi cc quy nh v mi trng vn
cha hng ti mc tiu l cc doanh nghip quy m nh hn. Hn na, so vi nm 2011,
t l doanh nghip h gia nh s hu vi ESC gim 30%. Tng t nh cc cuc iu
tra trc, doanh nghip l cng ty c phn c xu hng c t l ESC cao nht v tng so vi
nm 2011. Cc loi hnh doanh nghip khc gia mc 30%. Tuy nhin, trong khi t l cp
ESC ngy cng tng i vi cc doanh nghip t nhn v cng ty trch nhim hu hn, th
cc cng ty hp danh/ hp tc x c mc gim t.

- 88 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Khi tch mu theo quy m doanh nghip, chng ti nhn thy mt xu hng r rng l
cc doanh nghip quy m ln hn c xc sut c ESC ln hn. ng ch l khong 60%
cc doanh nghip c quy m trung bnh trong mu ca chng ti c ESC. Cc doanh nghip
ln cng tng t l c cp giy chng nhn mi trng so vi nm 2011, trong khi cc
doanh nghip nh hn li st gim. Nh th hin trong Bng 9.2, vic hn ch cc mu i
vi cc doanh nghip h gia nh cho thy nhng doanh nghip ng k chnh thc ( cp
qun, huyn) c t l c ESC ln hn.
Bng 9.2: Chng nhn tiu chun mi trng
ca cc h gia nh phn theo tnh chnh thc
T l doanh nghip c chng nhn
tiu chun mi trng
Chnh thc
Phi chnh thc
Tng

Khng

Khng

Tng

775

87

854

(89,8)

(10,2)

(100,0)

681

689

(98,8)

(1,2)

(100,0)

1.448

95

1.543

(93,8)

(6,2)

(100,0)

Ghi ch: nh ngha doanh nghip chnh thc: C m s doanh


nghip hoc ng k kinh doanh v m s thu. T l phn trm trong
ngoc n.

Bng 9.3 phn tch cc doanh nghip c ESC theo ngnh ( mc ISIC hai ch s). Cc
s liu cho thy t l cp giy chng nhn mi trng ca cc DNNVV gi mc khng
i so vi nm 2011. Mc d t l trung bnh khng i, c nhng thay i quan trng
gia cc doanh nghip thuc cc ngnh khc nhau. T l cao nht l cc doanh nghip thuc
ngnh ha dc (ISIC24), cao su (ISIC25) v giy (ISIC21), vi t l ln lt l 46,2%,
35,9% v 23,6% nhng c s st gim so vi nm 2011. Mt s ngnh c t l ESC thp
hn 10% l ch bin g (ISIC 20), xut bn (ISIC22), ch tosn phm kim loi (ISIC28) v
ni tht (ISIC36). Tuy nhin, cn ch l vic doanh nghip c hay khng c ESC ph
thuc vo ngnh hot ng. V vy, cn thn trng khi din gii nhng kt qu ny nh l
mt tn hiu ca s tun th tt hn cc quy nh v mi trng. Trn thc t, cc lnh vc
c t l doanh nghip c ESC cao c th s l lnh vc yu cu cc doanh nghip phi c
ESC. iu ny c minh ha trong Hnh 9.1, trong cho thy rng hn 60% cc doanh
nghip theo ui chng nhn mi trng do yu cu ca php lut. Do vy, cc DNNVV
Vit Nam tng t nh cc quc gia khc, ni m tnh hp php nh mt ng lc quan
trng trong p ng cc tiu chun mi trng (Gadenne v cng s, 2009).

- 89 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 9.3: Chng nhn tiu chun mi trng theo ngnh, ngh
Doanh nghip c chng nhn tiu chun mi trng
2011
M
Ngnh
ISIC

(%)

2013

Khng

(%)

Tng

(%)

Khng (%)

Tng

15

Sn phm thc phm v


ung

167 (22,8)

567

(77,2)

734

142 (18,8)

613

(81,2)

755

17

Dt

11

(10,6)

93

(89,4)

104

12

(12,5)

84

(87,5)

96

18

May mc, v.v...

(7,4)

112

(92,6)

121

20

(17,4)

95

(82,6)

115

19

Thuc da v da may mc

(8,5)

43

(91,5)

47

(10,0)

45

(90,0)

50

20

G v cc sn phm g

(3,2)

240

(96,8)

248

15

(6,1)

231

(93,9)

246

21

Giy v cc sn phm giy 18

(26,9)

49

(73,1)

67

17

(23,6)

55

(76,4)

72

22

Xut bn, in n, v.v...

(13,6)

51

(86,4)

59

(7,8)

59

(92,2)

64

23

Du m tinh ch, v.v...

(14,3)

(85,7)

(25,0)

(75,0)

24

Sn phm ha hc, v.v...

20

(51,3)

19

(48,7)

39

24

(46,2)

28

(53,8)

52

25

Sn phm cao su v nha

41

(36,0)

73

(64,0)

114

47

(35,9)

84

(64,1)

131

26

Sn phm khong phi kim 28

(24,6)

86

(75,4)

114

26

(25,5)

76

(74,5)

102

27

Kim loi c bn

(25,7)

26

(74,3)

35

(14,8)

23

(85,2)

27

28

Sn phm kim loi c

27

(6,3)

404

(93,7)

431

35

(8,3)

386

(91,7)

421

29-32 My mc

15

(20,3)

59

(79,7)

74

15

(23,1)

50

(76,9)

65

34

Xe c, v.v...

(17,6)

14

(82,4)

17

(25,0)

(75,0)

12

35

Phng tin giao thng

(37,5)

(62,5)

(33,3)

(66,7)

36

Ni tht, v.v...

13

(6,7)

181

(93,3)

194

17

(8,6)

181

(91,4)

198

Tng

385 (16,0) 2.028 (84,0) 2.413 392 (16,2) 2.031 (83,8) 2.423

Ghi ch: Da trn mu tng th. Khng bao gm 33 doanh nghip trong ngnh dch v trong nm 2013. T l phn trm
trong ngoc n.

T l thp cc doanh nghip c giy chng nhn mi trng c th do hn ch kin


thc v cc yu cu php l nn chng ti chuyn sang phn tch trnh hiu bit v cc
quy nh mi trng ca cc DNNVV. Hnh 9.1 cho thy bc tranh nhn thc v Lut Mi
trng ca cc DNNVV Vit Nam. Nhn chung, cc doanh nghip dng nh cha nhn
thc c nhng lnh vc quan trng ca php lut v mi trng c nh hng n hot
ng ca doanh nghip. Phn ln doanh nghip (khong 80%), hoc khng c kin thc v
Lut Mi trng hoc nu c th rt km. Ch c 1/5 s ngi c phng vn tr li rng
kin thc ca h l tt hay trung bnh. Nm 2013, t l DNNVV thy rng kin thc v Lut
Mi trng l tt hay trung bnh gim nh so vi nm 2011. Nu so snh vi nm 2007 v
nm 2009, xu hng nhn thc hn ch v quy nh mi trng gi khng i (CIEM, DoE,
ILSSA, 2010). Nhng con s trn mt phn phn nh thc t rng ESC l khng cn thit
trong tt c cc lnh vc, nhng cng cho thy cc quy nh v mi trng cha c sc lan
ta trong cng ng DNNVV. Do vy, dng nh c rt nhiu cng vic cn phi c thc
hin nng cao nhn thc v cc quy nh mi trng trong cc DNNVV, qua ci thin
cc hot ng mi trng ni chung ca Vit Nam. Nhng pht hin trong nghin cu trc

- 90 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

y ch ra rng nu c nhiu ch /nh qun l DNNVV nhn thc c nhng li ch gn


lin vi hot ng mi trng (v d thng qua cc chin dch ca chnh ph v chng
trnh qung co), h s c khuynh hng tham gia vo cc hot ng thn thin mi trng
(Gadenne et al., 2009).
Hnh 9.1: Kin thc v Lut mi trng (%)
2011

2013

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tt

Trung bnh

Km

Khng c kin
thc/khng quan
tm

Tip theo, Hnh 9.2 cho thy l do ca vic c ESC gi nguyn so vi nm 2011.
Chng ti nhn thy c tng v nhu cu ci thin iu kin lm vic, nhng suy gim ln
trong c giy chng nhn thu ht nhiu khch hng hn. Pht hin ny c th ch ra mc
nh gi thp ESC trn th trng khi m khch hang khng nh gi cao vic qun l
mi trng c m bo bng mt giy chng nhn mi trng. ng thi, kt qu phn
tch cng cho thy nhng l do thng mi khng khuyn khch ch s hu DNNVV c
ESC v thc trng ny tri ngc vi hu ht cc nc khc khi cc bng chng cho thy p
lc thng mi l nhn t quan trng doanh nghip c giy chng nhn mi trng
(Psomas et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2007; Simpson et al., 2004; Porter & Linde, 1995). So vi
nm 2011, t l cc DNNVV c ESC do l do c nhn trch nhim bo v mi trng nm
2013 gim khng ng k. Tng t nh nm 2011, k vng v kh nng gim chi ph khi
quyt nh c ESC chim t l khng ng k. Lin quan n vn ny, cc DNNVV Vit
Nam tng t nh DNNVV cc nc khc, ni ch s hu/ngi qun l c nhn thc
hn ch v vic ct gim chi ph c th l kt qu ca hot ng thn thin vi mi trng
(Gadenne et al., 2009).
Nh trnh by, t l cc DNVVN c ESC khng cao. Do vy, chng ti s phn tch
nhng kh khn m doanh nghip gp phi khi c gng thc hin y cc yu cu ca
cc quy nh v mi trng. Nhng hn ch nhn thc ch yu v nhng tr ngi phi i
mt vi nhng doanh nghip c ESC l g? Bng 9.4 m t cc chi tit cu tr li lin quan
n nhng kh khn ca doanh nghip v chi ph tun th. Cc mu c phn chia gia
nhng doanh nghip c v khng c ESC, th hin tng ng trong bng (a) v (b).

- 91 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Hnh 9.2: L do c chng nhn tiu chun mi trng (%)

64

Yu cu ca php lut

60
20
16

Ci thin iu kin lm vic

L do c nhn

8
9

Thu ht thm/theo yu cu khch hng

5
10

Gim chi ph (trong di hn)

2
2

Khc

2
2
0

2013
10

20

30

40

2011
50

60

70

Ghi ch: L do c nhn bao gm nim tin vo ngha v phi bo v mi trng. Mu khng cn bng.

Nh trng hp hai nm trc, yu cu v phng chng chy n v cht lng khng


kh l nhng tiu chun kh khn v tn km nht. Yu cu t kh khn v tn km nht
chnh l cc tiu chun v nhit , nc v x l cht thi. Trong thi gian 2 nm qua, vic
tun th cc quy nh v phng chng chy n tr nn kh khn hn, trong khi tun th cc
yu cu v qun l cht lng khng kh, nc v x l cht thi tr nn d dng hn. C
mt s khc bit gia kh khn v chi ph gia cc yu cu c th ca quy nh v mi
trng. V d, p ng tiu chun nhit nm 2013 kh khn hn so vi nm 2011 nhng
vic tun th yu cu ny t tn km hn. Tiu chun x l cht thi v nhim ngun nc
c coi l t kh khn, nhng vic tun th trong nm 2013 li tn km hn.
i vic c doanh nghip khng c ESC, p ng tiu chun v cht lng khng kh
dng nh l kh khn nht. Cc tiu chun, iu kin kh tip theo l phng chng chy n
v nhit . So snh nhng kh khn theo nhn thc v thc t cng nh chi ph lin quan
n vic tun th, cho thy cc thng s tun th v nhn thc v thc t c lin quan cht
ch vi nhau. Tuy nhin, c s khc bit gia nhng kh khn theo nhn thc v trn thc t
trin khai. V d, cc doanh nghip nhn thc yu cu v cht lng khng kh, nhit v
qun l ting n kh khn hn thc t. iu ny c v l du hiu ca cc cng ty khng
tun th dng nh nh gi qu cao nhng kh khn lin quan n vic tun th trong cc
lnh vc ny. Ngc li, i vi cc yu cu v phng chng chy n, doanh nghip khng
c mt ESC dng nh nh gi thp nhu cu lin quan n vic tun th quy nh v trch
nhim mi trng trong phng chng chy n. 26,4% doanh nghip khng c ESC cho rng
yu cu phng chng chy n l kh p ng nhng thc t c n 28,7% doanh nghip c
ESC gp kh khn ny.

- 92 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 9.4: Kh khn v chi ph tun th chng nhn tiu chun mi trng
Kh khn nht (%)
Yu cu

2011

2013

Tt c

Tn chi ph nht (%)


2011

2013

Tt c

Panel (a) Doanh nghip c chng nhn


tiu chun mi trng
Cht lng khng kh

28,4

26,8

27,6

46,0

32,3

38,8

Phng chng chy n

23,5

33,4

28,7

20,1

27,5

24,0

Nhit

10,4

12,3

11,4

14,2

11,1

12,6

nh sng

1,7

2,8

2,3

1,0

3,2

2,2

Ting n

7,3

8,2

7,8

5,2

6,7

6,0

Rc thi

13,2

6,0

9,4

4,5

7,9

6,3

nhim nc

14,2

9,5

11,7

8,0

10,8

9,4

Suy gim/ nhim t

1,4

0,6

1,0

1,0

0,6

0,8

Tng s

289

323

612

289

322

611

Panel (b) Doanh nghip khng c chng nhn


tiu chun mi trng
Cht lng khng kh

33,2

27,2

30,1

45,6

31,6

38,3

Phng chng chy n

26,7

26,4

26,6

22,1

25,7

24,0

Nhit

12,5

18,6

15,7

14,1

15,9

15,1

nh sang

2,4

2,3

2,3

1,3

2,0

1,7

Ting n

14,3

16,5

15,4

6,6

14,4

10,7

Rc thi

3,9

3,3

3,6

4,3

3,9

4,1

nhim nc

6,2

4,9

5,5

4,7

5,4

5,1

Suy gim/ nhim t

0,8

0,8

0,8

1,3

1,1

1,2

1.284

1.436

2. 720

1.284

1.417

2.701

Tng s

xc nh mc thun li c cESC, chng ti xem xt mt doanh nghip


mt bao nhiu ngy c c ESC. Thi gian trung bnh khong1 9,5 ngy vo nm 2013
v 18 ngy trong nm 2011.So vi thi gian cn thit c c cc ti liu php l cn
thit khc cho hot ng kinh doanh nh chng nhn ng k kinh doanh, giy chng nhn
chuyn giao cng ngh vi thi gian tng ng l 46 v 20 ngy, thi gian c c ESC l
kh nhanh. Tuy nhin, so vi cc giy chng nhn khc, chng hn nh Giy chng nhn
ng k bo him x hi, Giy chng nhn u t hoc Giy chng nhn phng chy cha
chy (khong 15ngy) th thi gian c c ESC ln hn mt cht.
Nh trnh by trong Hnh 9.3, cc doanh nghip ch yu tp trung vo vic thc hin
cc yu cu v phng chy cha chy vi t l 33% v 35% doanh nghip c ESC tng
ng trong nm 2011 v 2013. Cc yu cu v nh sng v nhit c t l doanh nghip
thc hin mc 25%. Chng ti nhn thy cc doanh nghip c nhng n lc cao hn
ng k trong x l cc yu cu v nh sng v mi trng trong nm 2013 so vi nm
2011. Yu cu duy nht c t l thp hn l qun l cht lng khng kh

- 93 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Hnh 9.3: Doanh nghip x l cc yu t mi trng? (%)

Phng chng chy n


nh sng
Nhit
Rc thi
nhim nc
Cht lng khng kh
Ting n
Suy gim/ nhim t

2013
0

10

15

20

25

30

2011
35

40

Trong phn cui ca chng ny, chng ti phn tch u t cho cc thit b p ng
cc tiu chun mi trng. Hnh 9.4 cung cp thng tin vcc khon u t vo cc trang
thit b trong nm 2011 v nm 2013. Tt c cc gi tr c iu chnh theo lm pht.
Hnh 9.4: u t vo trang thit b nhm t c
cc tiu chun mi trng (t ng, doanh s thc)
2011

2013

90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Suy gim/
nhim t

nhim
nc

Rc thi

Cht lng
khng kh

Ting n Phng chng Nhit


chy n

- 94 -

nh sng

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Nhn chung, nm 2013 cc doanh nghip u t thn cho cc trang thit b mi


trng so vi nm 2011. Tng s tin u t gim khong 40%, t 155 t ng trong nm
2011 xung cn 96,5 t ng trong nm 2013. Cc DNNVV u t nhiu nht vo cc trang
thit b chng li vic thoi ha t v nhim ngun nc, trong khi cc khon u t vo
cc loi thit b khc l khng ng k. Trong nm 2013, u t vo cc thit b c th ngn
chn thoi ha t c gi tr thc cao nht khong 50 t ng. Trong khi cng mt loi thit
b c trng trong nm 2011, chi ph thp hn so vi chi ph ca thit b gim thiu nhim
nc bn ln. Nm 2011, cc doanh nghip u t nhiu hn cho cc trang thit b x l
cht thi v gim thiu thit hi do ting n so vi nm 2013 Cc khon u t vo thit b
mi trng phn ln c cc doanh nghip thc hin gn y trng khp vi thi im c
hiu lc ca Lut Mi trng. Tnh trung bnh, trang thit b mi trng c tui l 6 nm,
cc thit b x l nc thi c tui i ln hn so vi cc loi trang thit b khc (trung bnh
7,4 nm).

- 95 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

10 THNG MI V CU TRC BN HNG


pht trin cc chnh sch nh hng xut khu v hp l khuyn khch cc
doanh nghip xut khu, iu quan trng l hiu c hnh vi xut khu v cc cu trc bn
hng ni chung ca cc doanh nghip sn xut Vit Nam. Chng ny ca bo co s cung
cp mt ci nhn tng quan v cu trc thng mi v bn hnh trn c s phn tch cuc
iu tra DNNVV nm 2013.

10.1 Hnh vi xut khu


Bng 10.1 cung cp thng tin tng quan v cc doanh nghip xut khu theo tui,
quy m, a im v hnh thc s hu. Trong nm 2013, 150 doanh nghip trong s 2.461
doanh nghip c kho st tham gia vo hot ng xut khu, tng ng vi 6,1% trn
tng mu. T l ny tng t nh nm 2011 (145 doanh nghip). Trong s 150 doanh
nghip xut khu trong nm 2013 ch c 29 doanh nghip siu nh vi tng ng vi 1,6%.
Nu loi tr cc doanh nghip siu nh th t l doanh nghip tham gia xut khu l 21%.
ng thi, kt qu cng cho thy nhiu doanh nghip tr thnh nh xut khu theo thi gian
(117 trong s 1988 doanh nghip xut khu trong nm 2011 - 6% v tng ln 133 doanh
nghip xut khu trong nm 2013 - 6,7%).
V mt l thuyt, cc doanh nghip c hiu qu hn v mt k thut khi xut khu do
c kh nng cnh tranh trn th trng quc t. Mt khc, cc doanh nghip c th hc hi t
vic tham gia xut khu nh gim chi ph v thit k sn phm ph hp vi khch hng
nc ngoi.
Bng 10.1: Doanh nghip xut khu (%)
Ton b
Quy m

a im
S hu

Siu nh
Nh
Va
Nng thn
Thnh th
H gia nh
Doanh nghip t nhn
Hp danh/Tp th/Hp tc x
TNHH
C phn

2011
6,0
1,4
10,9
38,2
4,0
8,8
1,6
7,8
9,2
18,0
10,9

2013
6,1
1,6
13,1
35,6
4,7
7,9
1,8
7,1
14,5
15,6
13,8

Theo Bng 10.1, cc doanh nghip ln hn c xc sut xut khu ln hn. Cc doanh
nghip thnh th c nhiu kh nng xut khu hn so vi cc doanh nghip nng thn.
Hnh thc s hu cng ng mt vai tr quan trng trong vic xc nh liu mt doanh
nghip c hot ng xut khu hay khng. Cc doanh nghip h gia nh dng nh khng
c kh nng xut khu, trong khi 15% cng ty trch nhim hu hn v cng ty c phn c
hot ng xut khu.

- 96 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Bng 10.2 trnh by chi tit v cc doanh nghip xut khu. Trong s 150 doanh
nghip xut khu, ch c 68 doanh nghip cung cp thng tin v nhng vn c nu
trong Bng 10.2. S lng trung bnh ca cc khch hng nc ngoi l 4. Khong 25 phn
trm doanh nghip xut khu ch c 1 khch hng, v 10% doanh nghip c ln hn 10
khch hng. iu ny cho thy cc doanh nghip xut khu c tng i t i tc thng
mi nc ngoi khi tham gia vo xut khu trc tip, v cc doanh nghip ny c cu
chuyn mn ha nhiu hn so vi cc doanh nghip khng xut khu. Doanh thu ti th
trng nc ngoi chim khong gn mt na doanh s hot ng ca cc doanh nghip
xut khu: 48,2% tng doanh thu t xut khu. T l ny cao hn i vi cc doanh nghip
nng thn so vi doanh nghip thnh th.
Bng 10.2: Chi tit v doanh nghip xut khu (%)
Tng

Thnh
th

Nng
thn

S quan st

(68)

(44)

(24)

S lng khch hng xut khu trc tip

3,7

3,3

4,5

T trng xut khu trong tng doanh thu

48,2

45,8

52,6

Nhn thng s k thut sn phm, thit k v nguyn vt liu t khch hng

76,5

75,0

79,2

S dng t vn php l khi k hp ng xut khu trc tip

42,6

52,3

25,0

Hp tc vi i tc nc ngoi cung cp trc tip cng ngh v chuyn gia

66,2

61,4

75,0

Ghi ch: 68 doanh nghip trong tng s 150 doanh nghip xut khu tr li ton b cc cu hi lin quan trong
bng. c im ca doanh nghip xut khu theo s liu iu tra nm 2013.

Trung bnh 8 trong s 10 doanh nghip nhn c thng s k thut sn phm, thit k
hoc nguyn vt liu t khch hng nc ngoi v hn 60% doanh nghip xut khu c
cung cp cng ngh v chuyn mn trc tip t cc i tc thng mi nc ngoi m h l
ra khng c quyn tip cn. Khong 40% doanh nghip s dng t vn php lut khi tham
gia hp ng xut khu trc tip. Doanh nghip nng thn c rt t kh nng s dng t vn
php l so vi cc doanh nghip thnh th, cho thy y c h l mt du hiu ca dch v
php l km pht trin nng thn. Cui cng, doanh nghip xut khu c t l qung co
ln hn. Mt phn ba doanh nghip xut khu c hot ng qung co, trong khi ch c
11 phn trm ca cc doanh nghip khng xut khu qung co, cho thy kh nng hin th
l quan trng hn i vi doanh nghip xut khu.
Mt c tnh khc ca cc doanh nghip xut khu l c gi tr cao hn so vi doanh
nghip khng xut khu. Bng 10.3 cho thy tng doanh thu bnh qun nhn vin ton thi gian
v tng li nhun rng bnh qun nhn vin ton thi gian ph thuc vo vic doanh nghip
xut khu hay khng. i vi doanh nghip xut khu kim, doanh thu bnh qun l 112 triu
ng gn gp hai ln so vi 61 triu ng ca doanh nghip khng xut khu. Nu khng xt
quy m v a im doanh nghip, tng doanh thu bnh qun ca doanh nghip xut khu ln
hn ng k. Phn tch tng li nhun rng bnh qun (khng bao gm doanh nghip thnh th
v c lp vi quy m, a im) doanh nghip xut khu c li nhun bnh qun cao hn so vi
doanh nghip khng xut khu. S khc bit v li nhun rng khng ln nhng ng k khi
xem xt tng loi hnh doanh nghip. V d, cc doanh nghip nh v siu nh xut khu
nng thn dng nh c kt qu tt hn so vi doanh nghip khng xut khu.

- 97 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 10.3: Doanh thu bnh qun v li nhun bnh qun lao ng ton thi gian
Doanh thu bnh qun lao ng ton thi gian
Tng
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Thnh th
Nng thn

Xut khu
112,3
73,3
130,5
106,8
113,9
110,2

Khng xut khu


61,2
56,3
75,1
80,9
73,9
51,9

Li nhun bnh qun


lao ng ton thi gian
Xut khu
Khng xut khu
9,6
9,0
10,6
9,4
9,9
7,8
8,6
8,4
8,8
10,4
10,7
8,0

Ghi ch: n v t ng.

Nu khng xem xt quan h nhn qu, kt qu c lng probit xc nh hot ng


xut khu c nu trong Bng 10.4.
Bng 10.4: Nhn t quyt nh xut khu
Tui doanh nghip
Quy m doanh nghip
Tng doanh thu
Lng bnh qun
Gii thiu sn phm mi
Ci tin sn phm hin c
a im

S hu

S nm (x1.000)
Tng lao ng (x1.000)
log (x100)
triu ng/lao ng
C = 1
C = 1
H Ni
Ph Th
H Ty
Hi Phng
Ngh An
Qung Nam
Khnh Ha
Lm ng
Long An
Doanh nghip t nhn
Hp danh/Tp th/Hp tc x
TNHH
C phn

Bin gi ngnh ngh


S quan st
Pseudo R-squared

H s
Thng k-z
0,095
(1,27)
0,475**
(2,39)
1,346***
(5,36)
0,007
(1,17)
0,003
(0,15)
0,018**
(2,52)
-0,004
(-0,85)
-0,006
(-0,90)
0,011
(1,32)
-0,015***
(-4,34)
-0,014***
(-3,46)
-0,013***
(-3,05)
-0,009**
(-1,98)
-0,012***
(-3,00)
-0,008
(-1,48)
0,011
(1,03)
0,039
(1,36)
0,025**
(2,28)
0,024
(1,32)
Yes
2.372
0,328

Ghi ch: Probit, hiung bin. lch chun th, khng trng s. *, ** v *** ch mc tin cy10%,
5% v 1% . C s: Tp H Ch Minh, h gia nh, ch bin thc phm(ISIC 15).

c lng bao gm cc c im tiu chun ca doanh nghip, logarit doanh thu


thc t, lng lao ng thc t bnh qun, v cc ch s doanh nghip gii thiu sn phm
mi hoc cng ngh mi. Tng kt li, chng ti tm thy mt s kt qu th v. u tin,
doanh thu thc t bnh qun mi lao ng c quan h thun n xut khu, nh xut

- 98 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

trong Bng 10.3. Th hai, tin lng bnh qun c quan h thun n xut khu, cho thy
lao ng lm vic trong cc doanh nghip xut khu c tin lng ln hn so vi lao ng
lm vic trong cc doanh nghip khng xut khu. Tm li, cc doanh nghip c nng sut
cao hn (c hiu chnh theo quy m), c nhiu kh nng xut khu hn. Th ba, cc
doanh nghip xut khu khng c kh nng gii thiu sn phm mi ln hn nhng c kh
ci thin cc sn phm hin c ln hn. Cc doanh nghip tham gia hot ng xut khu
c i th cnh tranh rng ln hn nn gim chi ph thng qua i mi v a dng ha c
th rt quan trng cho s sng cn trong tng lai. Th t, cc doanh nghip xut khu c
nhiu kh nng n t TP H Ch Minh hn t cc tnh Hi Phng, Ngh An, Qung Nam,
Khnh Ha v Lm ng. Cui cng, doanh nghip h gia nh c mt xc sut tham gia
th trng xut khu thp hn so vi cc cng ty trch nhim hu hn. Kh nng cc
doanh nghip c cu trc php l khc vo th trng nc ngoi khc khng ng k so
vi doanh nghip h gia nh.
Hnh 10.1 m t th trng xut khu trong nm 2013. Trong s 150 doanh nghip
xut khu, 85 doanh nghip cung cp thng tin v th trng xut khu ca h v 65 doanh
nghip cung cp thng tin v nhp khu nguyn liu. Trung Quc v cc nc chu vn
l th trng xut khu v nhp khu nguyn vt liu ca cc DNVVN Vit Nam. Cc
nc ASEAN chim th phn xut khu ln nht (khong 17%), Nht Bn (16%) v cc
nc EU (15%). Cc nc chu khc chim 14,7%, trong khi Hoa K chim khong
11%. Khong 10% ca cc nguyn liu c s dng trong sn xut c nhp khu trc
tip. Hu ht cc doanh nghip cho rng nguyn liu c nhp khu ch yu t cc nc
chu . Trong , 27,5% c nhp khu t Trung Quc, trong khi ch c mt phn nh
ca cc doanh nghip nhp khu nguyn liu t M v EU (khong 3% mi th trng).
Hnh 10.1: Th trng xut khu v nhp khu

Nhp khu

Xut khu

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Trung
Quc

Nht Bn

ASEAN

Cc nc
chu
khc

- 99 -

EU

Nga

Khc
(khng
phi chu
)

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Mt na s doanh nghip cho bit phi mt t hn hai tun hon thnh th tc thng
quan v 20% doanh nghip tn mt thng. Thi gian xut khu khc nhau rt nhiu gia cc
doanh nghip, khong 40% trong tng s 49 doanh nghip cho rng phi mt t hn hai tun
cho hng ha tip cn vi khch hng chnh sau khi n n a im n xut cnh t
Vit Nam. Khong 45% doanh nghip cho bit phi mt n 14 ngy thng quan i vi
nguyn liu u vo nhp khu, trong khi 15% doanh nghip mt hn mt thng hon
thnh nhp khu nguyn liu.

10.2 Cnh tranh v cu trc bn hng


Phn hai ca chng ny tp trung phn tch cu trc bn hng v nhn thc ca doanh
nghip v mc cnh tranh trong ngnh, lnh vc hot ng trong nm 2013. Cc kt qu
khng thay i ng k khi phn tch d liu cn bng.
Hnh 10.2 cho thy nhn thc v mc cnh tranh ca doanh nghip thnh th v
nng thn. c lp vi a im v quy m, khong 90% doanh nghip cho rng h phi i
mt vi mt s i th cnh tranh trong lnh vc hot ng. Trong khi cc doanh nghip
thnh th v nng thn cm thy p lc cnh tranh tng t nhau th cc doanh nghip nh
li l i tng thng xuyn quan tm vn ny. Trong thi gian hai nm 2011-2013,
72% doanh nghip bo co mc cnh tranh tng ln k t nm 2011, v ch c 24
phn trm ngh rng mc cnh tranh vn gi mc c. Ch c 3% doanh nghip cho rng
mc cnh tranh gim. Cc s liu ny tng t i vi cc doanh nghip thnh th v
nng thn, nhng c v nh mc cnh tranh ca cc doanh nghip nng thn thp hn
doanh nghip thnh th. S liu sau y minh ha im ny: trong khi 63% doanh nghip
nng thn cm thy p lc cnh tranh tng ln so vi hai nm trc y so vi t l 84%
doanh nghip thnh th. Khong 5% doanh nghip nng thn cm thy rng mc cnh
tranh gim, nhng ch c 1% doanh nghip thnh th cm thy nh vy.
Hnh 10.2 cho thy t l cc doanh nghip c hng tn kho nhiu. Khong 38% doanh
nghip c hng tn kho kh tiu th, tng ng vi 927 doanh nghip. Cc doanh nghip
thnh th tn kho nhiu hn so vi cc doanh nghip nng thn 47% so vi 31%. Cc doanh
nghip siu nh tn kho t hn gn hai ln so vi cc doanh nghip va v nh. So vi nm
2011, chng ta thy mt mc cao hn hng tn kho kh tiu th trong nm 2013 - tng t
28% ln 33%. iu ny tng t mi quy m doanh nghip v c bit i vi cc doanh
nghip thnh tht l ny tng thm 19 im phn trm. Cc doanh nghip nng thn l
ngoi l duy nht khi c t l hng tn kho kh tiu th gim 9% so vi nm 2011. Trong
khi cc doanh nghip nng thn thot khi tnh trng hng tn kh kh tiu th, h cng
phi i mt thng xuyn vi p lc cnh tranh mnh m. Trung bnh, cc cng ty cm
thy t cnh tranh trong nm 2011 so vi nm 2013, nhng ngc li i vi doanh nghip
thnh th v doanh nghip quy m va.

- 100 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Hnh 10.2: Cm nhn v mc cnh tranh (%)
Hng tn kho kh bn

Cnh tranh trong ngnh

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tng Thnh Nng
thn
th

Siu
nh

a im

Nh

Va

Tng Thnh Nng


thn
th

Quy m

Siu
nh

a im

2011

Nh

Va

Quy m
2013

By gi chng ta kim tra nhn thc v cnh tranh ca DNNVV cnh tranh t cc
ngun khc nhau xc nh ngun chnh ca cnh tranh trong sn xut. Cc doanh nghip
c yu cu xp hng cc cp nhn thc v i th cnh tranh trn thang im bn v
im trung bnh c trnh by trong Bng 10.5. Mc d a s cc doanh nghip c kho
st ni rng h cm thy p lc cnh tranh t mi trng kinh doanh ca h, mc nhn
thc trung bnh ca cnh tranh l tng i nh trong Bng 10.5. iu ny cho thy nhiu
doanh nghip c kho st ang hot ng trong nhng th trng khng hp dn cho cc
doanh nghip ln hn v hin i hn.
Bng 10.5: Cnh tranh t cc ngun khc nhau
Cnh tranh t:
Doanh
Doanh
Doanh
nghip t nghip t
nghip
S
nhn
nhn phi
nh nc
quan st
chnh thc chnh thc
Tng mu
(2.149)
1,9
2,7
2,9
Thnh th
(931)
1,7
2,5
2,8
Nng thn
(1.218)
2,2
3,0
3,0
H gia nh
(1.326)
1,7
2,4
2,9
Doanh nghip t nhn
(180)
2,3
3,0
2,9
Hp danh/Tp th/Hp tc x
(49)
2,5
3,0
2,9
TNHH
(493)
2,3
3,2
2,9
C phn
(101)
2,6
3,2
3,1

Nhp
khu
hp
php
1,7
1,5
2,1
1,5
1,8
2,1
2,1
2,0

Bun
lu

Cc
ngun
khc

1,6
1,5
1,9
1,5
1,7
2,0
1,9
1,7

1,7
1,5
1,9
1,6
1,7
1,7
1,8
1,5

Ghi ch: Mc cnh tranh xp theo: 4 = Cnh tranh khc lit, 3 = Cnh tranh va phi, 2 =Cnh tranh khng ng
k, 1 = Khng c cnh tranh, v th s cng cao th mc cnh tranh cng ln. Thiu thng tin 312 doanh nghip.

- 101 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Nhn chung, cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc t nhn c mc cm nhn cnh tranh
cao nht (c lp vi a im v hnh thc s hu). Cc doanh nghip t nhn chnh thc
ng th hai. Cc doanh nghip phi i ph vi hng nhp lu c t cnh tranh nht. Trong
khi , cc doanh nghip nh nc, nhp khu hp php, v cc ngun khc khng to ra
nhiu mi e da. Tnh trung bnh, cc ngun cnh tranh l va phi. Tuy nhin, chng ta c
th quan st s khc bit nh gia cc doanh nghip theo a im v hnh thc php l gia
doanh nghip t nhn v cng ty c phn so vi loi hnh doanh nghip khc. Doanh nghip
nng thn cm thy cnh tranh ln t doanh nghip t nhn (c chnh thc v khng chnh
thc) v xem xt y l ngun cnh tranh ln nht. Tip theo, cnh tranh t cc doanh
nghip nh nc l khng ng k, ngoi tr i vi cng ty trch nhim hu hn v cng ty
hp danh/hp tc x. iu ny phn nh thc t l cc DNNVV Vit Nam sn xut hng ho
khc vi cc doanh nghip ln v hin i.
i ph vi sc p cnh tranh, cc doanh nghip thc hin mt vi hnh ng.
V d, 20% doanh nghip gii thiu cc sn phm mi nh mt phn ng cnh tranh
trong nc v nc ngoi; 30% doanh nghip thc hin ci tin cc sn phm hin ti vi
cng l do trn. Gii thiu cng ngh mi cng l mt cch i ph vi i th cnh
tranh - 40% doanh nghip thc hin hot ng ny. T l tng t cc doanh nghip cho
rng tng chi ph khng chnh thc c th gim nh cc tc ng ca mi trng cnh tranh.
Nh nu trong Hnh 10.2, khong 38% doanh nghip c hng tn kho. Hnh 10.3
cho thy ti sao cc doanh nghip gp kh khn trong tiu th hng tn kh. L do quan
trng nht l c qu nhiu sn phm cng loi trn th trng. L do quan trng th hai l
cc doanh nghip khng tip cn c cc knh bn hng. Khong 5% doanh nghip tin
rng cht lng ca hng tn kho qu thp c th tiu th c. Cc t l tng t i
vi cc doanh nghip thnh th v nng thn.
Mt cch gii quyt cc vn i vi hng tn kho l sn xut theo n t hng
trc. Khong 60% doanh nghip hu nh lun lun sn xut cc n hng trc, trong
khi ch c 11% khng bao gi sn xut n hng trc (kt qu khng c trnh by
trong bo co). Cc doanh nghip th c t l sn xut theo n hng trc ln hn cc
doanh nghip nng thn (65% so vi 54%). Tuy nhin, c s khc bit rt ln trong vic
s dng n hng trc gia cc doanh nghip theo hnh thc php l v quy m. Ch c
mt na s doanh nghip sn xut theo n hng trc, trong khi 74% cc cng ty c phn
thng xuyn lm nh vy. Khong 86% doanh nghip va v nh sn xut theo n hng
trc, nhng ch c 53% doanh nghip siu nh. Nhng pht hin ny cho thy rng cc
doanh nghip ln chc chn trang b tt hn i ph vi cnh tranh.

- 102 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Hnh 10.3: Kh khn ch yu trong bn hng tn kho (%)
Tng

Thnh th

Nng thn

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Qu nhiu sn
phm cng loi

Cht lng sn
phm thp

Khng tip cn Vn chuyn kh Gi sn phm qu


c knh bn
khn
cao
hng tt

Khc

Kt qu ca c lng probit xc nh i th mc cnh tranh nhn thc c


bng cch s dng cc c tnh tiu chun c trnh by trong Bng 10.6. Cc ch s hng
tn kho, xut khu v s lng khch hng cng c xem xt. Nu khng kim tra quan h
nhn qu, chng ta c th kt lun rng lng khch hng ln hn v hng tn kho c quan
h thun chiu n nhn thc ca doanh nghip v cnh tranh. Cc doanh nghip ti TP H
Ch Minh c kh nng cm nhn c s cnh tranh t hn cc doanh nghip Qung Nam,
Khnh Ha v Lm ng. Dng nh cc doanh nghip h gia nh c mc cnh tranh
thp hn so vi cng ty trch nhim hu hn v cng ty c phn trong cng mt lnh vc
hot ng. iu ny ph hp vi kt qu m t Bng 10.5.
Bng 10.6: Nhn t quyt nh tnh cnh tranh
Quy m doanh nghip
Khch hng
Hng tn kho
Xut khu
aim

S hu

S lng lao ng (x1.000)


S khch hng
C = 1, Khng = 0
C = 1, Khng = 0
H Ni
PhTh
H Ty
Hi Phng
Ngh An
Qung Nam
KhnhHa
Lm ng
Long An
Doanh nghip t nhn
Hp danh/tp th/hp tc x
TNHH
C phn

Bin gi ngnh ngh


S quan st
Pseudo R-squared

H s
-0,335
0,007
0,097***
0,003
0,014
-0,055**
-0,026
-0,056*
0,010
0,043**
0,097***
0,094***
-0,050
0,029
0,033
0,038**
0,050**

Thng k-z
(-1,15)
(1,17)
(8,13)
(0,13)
(0,68)
(-2,00)
(-1,11)
(-1,67)
(0,49)
(2,17)
(9,43)
(8,37)
(-1,45)
(1,44)
(1,01)
(2,38)
(2,31)
Yes
2.461
0,09

Ghi ch: Probit, hiung bin. lch chun th, khng trng s. *, ** v *** ch mc tin cy10%, 5% v 1%.
C s: Tp H Ch Minh, h gia nh, ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).

- 103 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

By gi chng ta chuyn sang xem xt ng dng sn xut v c im khch hng ca


doanh nghip. Bng 10.7 phn tch vic s dng u ra ca doanh nghip. Hn 40% sn
lng sn xut c s dng cho tiu dng cui cng v t l tng ng c s dng nh
mt u vo trong lnh vc dch v. iu c ngha l khong 15% sn lng c s
dng nh u vo trung gian trong sn xut nng nghip v sn xut cng nghip. Mt phn
ln hn ca sn xut c s dng cho tiu dng cui cng trong cc doanh nghip nng
thn, trong khi mt phn ln sn lng sn xut ca cc doanh nghip thnh th c s
dng nh u vo trong sn xut v dch v. Cc doanh nghip cm thy p lc cnh tranh
tiu th t l nh hn cho tiu dng cui cng so vi cc doanh nghip c mc cnh
tranh cao hn.
So vi cuc kho st nm 2009, d liu nm 2013 cho thy t l thp hn hng bn l
u vo ca dch v (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). T trng hng ha c bn vi mc ch
ny l 48,5% trong nm 2009. Mt im khc bit na l s gia tng trong t l hng ha
cho tiu dng cui cng t 32% trong nm 2009 ln 42% trong nm 2013 i vi c doanh
nghip thnh th v doanh nghip nng thn. So vi nm 2009, s liu v t l bn hng cho
tiu dng cui cng c khong cch gia cc doanh nghip vi mc cnh tranh khc
nhau gim mnh. Trong nm 2009, s khc bit gia hai loi doanh nghip ny khong
10 im phn trm, v gim xung cn 1,6 im phn trm trong nm 2013. Hn na, cc
s liu cho thy mt s suy gim trung bnh trong bn hng nhm mc ch cho kt qu
trung gian trong sn xut cng nghip khong 5 im phn trm.
Bng 10.7: S dng sn phm(%)
Tng
S quan st

Cnh tranh Khng cnh tranh Thnh th Nng thn

(2.461)

(2.164)

(297)

(1.062)

(1.399)

Tiu dng cui cng

42,0

41,8

43,4

33,4

48,6

u vo trung gian trong nng nghip

1,4

1,5

1,3

1,4

1,5

u vo trung gian trong cng nghip

12,7

13,2

9,5

16,7

9,7

u vo trung gian trong dch v

42,0

41,8

43,8

45,7

39,3

Khng bit

1,8

1,8

1,8

2,9

0,9

Nh cp trong chng 6, a dng ha nhm p ng nhu cu s lng khch


hng. a dng ha c s khch hng c th lm cho cc doanh nghip t b tn thng hn
i vi cc c sc v cu. Bng 10.8 cho thy khong mt na s doanh nghip c kho
st c hn 20 khch hng. Cc doanh nghip c mc cnh tranh cao c c s khch hng
ln hn khng ng k so vi cc doanh nghip khng c p lc cnh tranh. Mc d khng
ng k nhng s khc bit ny cho thy cc doanh nghip tm cch trnh nhng c sc cu
v gim cnh tranh thng qua a dng ha khch hng. Tip theo, doanh nghip nng thn
c xu hng c c s khch hng ln hn so vi cc doanh nghip thnh th.
Cc doanh nghip sn xut c phng vn trong nm 2013 bn hng cho cc khch
hng nm trong vng bn knh khong 43 km. Hnh 10.4 cung cp tng quan v v tr ca
khch hng. C s khc bit ng k v v tr ca khch hng gia cc doanh nghip thnh

- 104 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

th v nng thn. Tuy nhin, s khc bit ny trong phm vi tnh/thnh vi khong 79% v
87% phn trm khch hng trong cng a phng. Khong 68% khch hng doanh nghip
nng thn trong cng x hay x khc trong huyn. i vi doanh nghip thnh th, con s
ny l 43%.
Bng 10.8: C s khch hng (%)
Tng

Cnh tranh

Khng
cnh tranh

Thnh th

Nng thn

(2.461)

(2.164)

(297)

(1.062)

(1.399)

Ch c 1 khch hng

1,2

1,1

2,4

0,9

1,5

2-5 khch hng

9,0

8,9

9,8

7,5

10,1

6-10 khch hng

16,9

16,9

17,2

15,4

18,1

11-20 khch hng

25,4

25,4

25,6

29,5

22,3

Trn 20 khch hng

47,5

47,8

45,1

46,7

48,0

S quan st

Tnh trung bnh, ch c 7% khch hng cc tnh khng ln cn v cc doanh nghip


thnh cung cp cho khch hng cc tnh xa hn (9% cc tnh khng ln cn). Trong khi
, cc doanh nghip nng thn c t l tng t mu chung. Cc t l ny l tng t nh
cuc iu tra nm 2009 v ch c mt vi thay i nh (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). S khc
bit chnh l cc doanh nghip nng thn c nhiu khch hng a phng hn th hin
qua t l 81% khch hng trong cng tnh ca nm 2009 tng ln 87% trong nm 2013. T
l khch hng nm trong cng mt x tng ln i vi cc doanh nghip nng thn t 65%
trong nm 2009 ln 68% trong nm 2013, cc doanh nghip thnh th tng 34% ln 43%
trong cng thi k.
Hnh 10.4: a im khch hng (%)
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cng x/phng
Khc x/phng trong qun/huyn
Khc qun/huyn trong tnh/thnh
Tnh ln cn
Khc tnh (khng ln cn)
Xut khu (trc tip)
Tng

- 105 -

Thnh th

Nng thn

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

C cu doanh thu chung ca cc sn phm quan trng nht c th hin trong Bng
10.9. Hn 50% doanh nghip bn sn phm quan trng nht cho cc doanh nghip ngoi
quc doanh trong nc, trong khi 38% bn cho ngi tiu dng c nhn ti a phng. So
snh vi d liu t nm 2009, chng ti thy s gia tng trong t l bn cho ngi tiu dng
a phng (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010) t 31% (2009) ln 38% (2013). Chng ti cng
nhn thy c suy gim trong t l bn cho doanh nghip t nhn trong nc t 60% (2009)
xung 53% (2013).
Bng 10.9: C cu kinh doanh (%)
Tng

Cnh tranh

Khng
cnh tranh

Ngi tiu dng c nhn

38,3

38,1

40,0

30,0

44,6

Khch du lch

0,6

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,7

C quan nh nc phi thng mi

1,2

1,3

0,9

0,7

1,6

Doanh nghip trong nc ngoi


quc doanh

53,0

52,9

53,2

58,8

48,6

Doanh nghip nh nc

4,1

4,3

2,3

5,6

2,9

Doanh nghip c vn u t nc
ngoi

1,3

1,4

0,2

2,2

0,6

Xut khu

1,6

1,4

2,9

2,3

1,0

Thnh th Nng thn

Kt qu Bng 10.5 v vic s dng sn phm khng nh rng cc doanh nghip


chu p lc cnh tranh mnh m ch yu bn sn phm cho cc doanh nghip ngoi quc
doanh trong nc khc di dng u vo trung gian. Doanh nghip nng thn bn mt
phn tng i ln cho ngi tiu dng c nhn v c quan chnh ph phi thng mi,
trong khi cc doanh nghip thnh th bn mt phn tng i ln ca sn phm chnh cho
doanh nghip ngoi quc doanh trong nc. C v nh cc doanh nghip thnh th thng
xuyn cung cp cho cc doanh nghip nh nc. Hn na, cc doanh nghip xut khu
ch yu nm cc khu vc thnh th. Doanh nghip xut khu m bn sn phm cho
ngi tiu dng cui cng ti a phng chu p lc cnh tranh t hn so vi doanh
nghip khng xut khu.
Cc tiu ch chnh xc lp gi c th hin trong Bng 10.10. Khong 78% doanh
nghip s dng gi c nh v 15% doanh nghip xc nh gi trn c s m phn vi tng
khch hng. Cc doanh nghip c mc cnh tranh cao cng xc nh gi tng t nh
cc doanh nghip khc. Tuy nhin, cc doanh nghip cho rng h khng phi i mt vi
cnh tranh s dng phng thc m phn vi tng khch hng thng xuyn hn so vi
cc doanh nghip khc. Doanh nghip nng thn c nhiu kh nng bn gi tng t i th
cnh tranh hn so vi cc doanh nghip khc. iu ny tng t nh cuc iu tra nm
2009. n tng chung l doanh nghip d dng hn khi s dng gi c nh v m phn
ring r vi tng khch hng t hn so vi nm 2009.

- 106 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Bng 10.10: Cc tiu ch xc nh gi (%)
Tng

Cnh tranh

Khng
cnh tranh

Thnh
th

Nng
thn

Gi c nh da trn chi ph sn xut

77,8

78,3

74,1

79,7

76,3

Gi tng t i th cnh tranh

6,1

6,3

4,7

4,4

7,4

Gi thp hn i th cnh tranh ch yu

0,9

0,9

0,7

1,5

0,4

Tha thun vi tng khch hng

14,9

14,2

19,9

13,8

15,7

Gi do Nh nc kim sot

0,3

0,3

0,3

0,5

0,1

Khc

0,1

0,1

0,3

0,1

0,1

Trong phn cui cng ca chng ny, chng ta phn tch cc loi hnh qung co
c cc DNNVV s dng. Trong mu nm 2013, 13% doanh nghip c qung co, tng 2
im phn trm so vi nm 2009. Chi ph trung bnh cho qung co l 31,8 t ng. Mc d
cc doanh nghip thnh th c xc sut qung co gp hai ln so vi doanh nghip nng
thn, s tin m cc doanh nghip ny b ra t hn doanh nghip nng thn - 31 t ng so
vi 33 t ng. iu ny c th phn nh thc t l doanh nghip nng thn kh khn hn
trong thu ht v gi khch hng.
Trong s cc doanh nghip xut khu, 41% doanh nghip qung co, trong khi ch
c 11% doanh nghip khng xut khu qung co. Hnh 10.5 minh ha cc loi hnh qung
co c s dng ty thuc vo a im ca doanh nghip.
Hnh 10.5: Loi hnh qung co (%)

Internet
Bo
Hi ch thng mi
p phch ng ph
Thng tin trc tip
Khc
Truyn hnh
Nng thn

Pht thanh
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Thnh th
60%

70%

Tng
80%

Qung co trn Internet c v l ph bin nht. Tip theo l qung co trn bo v


chng trnh khuyn mi ti hi ch thng mi. C s khc bit ln gia cc doanh nghip
thnh th v nng thn i vi ni qung co. Trong khi 76% doanh nghip thnh th tp
trung vo qung co Internet th con s ca cc doanh nghip nng thn ch l 39%. Khong
45% doanh nghip nng thn s dng p phch ng ph, trong khi ch c 16% doanh
nghip thnh th s dng chin lc qung co ny. Bo ch c s dng nhiu hn mt

- 107 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

cht bi cc doanh nghip thnh th 36% so vi 29% ca doanh nghip nng thn. ng ch
, i pht thanh v truyn hnh l hai trong s cc loi c s dng t nht c l do chi ph
qu co. Trong thc t, cc doanh nghip qung co trn truyn hnh tr trung bnh 86 t
ng v cc doanh nghip qung co trn i pht thanh tr 135 t ng cho qung co
trong nm 2013, ln hn nhiu so vi s tin trung bnh chi cho qung co ca tt c cc
cng ty trong mu.
Cc kt qu c lng probit phn tch cc yu t xc nh quyt nh qung co
ca doanh nghip c trnh by trong Bng 10.11. Vic c lng da trn cc c im
doanh nghip v trnh hc vn, mc cnh tranh, hng tn kho, tip cn vi internet v
c trang web. Theo kt qu c lng, cc doanh nghip ln hn c kh nng qung co ln
hn tng t nh cc doanh nghip c truy cp Internet v c trang web. ng nh d on,
cc doanh nghip gp phi cnh tranh trong lnh vc hot ng c kh nng qung co ln
hn. Xc sut qung co thp hn i vi cc doanh nghip h gia nh so vi cc hnh
thc doanh nghip khc. Cui cng, kt qu khng th hin s khc bit trong qung co
gia cc a phng vi Tp H Ch Minh. iu ny cho thy thi tng t nhau gia cc
doanh nghip trong bi cnh cnh tranh gia cc tnh/thnh.
Bng 10.11: Nhn t quyt nh qung co
H s

Thng k-t

S nm (x1.000)

-0,317

(-0,57)

Tng lao ng (x1.000)

0,632***

(3,07)

-0,016

(-1,11)

0,040***

(3,60)

-0,007

(-0,65)

Internet

0,638***

(13,04)

Website

0,068***

(3,63)

S hu

0,769***

(5,71)

H Ni

0,012

(0,69)

PhTh

0,051

(1,59)

H Ty

-0,000

(-0,02)

Hi Phng

0,006

(0,30)

Ngh An

0,002

(0,12)

Qung Nam

-0,020

(-0,94)

KhnhHa

-0,019

(-0,89)

Lm ng

-0,034

(-1,50)

Long An

0,173***

(3,30)

Tui doanh nghip


Quy m doanh nghip
Trnh chuyn mn
Cnh tranh
Hng tn kho

aim

Bin gi ngnh ngh

S quan st

2.449

Pseudo R-squared

0,49

Ghi ch: Probit, hiu ng bin. lch chun th, khng trng s. *, ** v *** ch mc tin
cy10%, 5% v 1% . C s: Tp H Ch Minh, h gia nh, ch bin thc phm(ISIC 15).

- 108 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

11

KT LUN
Mt s kt lun quan trng rt ra t cuc iu tra l:

Khong 70% cc doanh nghip c kho st ni rng cuc khng hong kinh t ton cu
vn c nh hng tiu cc n iu kin kinh doanh nm 2013 v ch c 15% doanh
nghip khng cm thy nhng tc ng tiu cc ca khng hong nm 2007/2008 (c
bo co trong nm 2011 hoc 2013). V tng th, s lng doanh nghip cho rng tc
ng tiu cc ca khng hong kinh t ton cu 2007/2008 s ch l tm thi trong nm
2013 gim so vi nm 2011.
Tng t nh trong nm 2011, cc doanh nghip siu nh t b nh hng bi cuc khng
hong hn so vi cc doanh nghip ln. Hn na, trong khi cc doanh nghip cm thy t
b nh hng bi cuc khng hong nm 2007/2008 min Nam trong nm 2013 gim so
vi nm 2011 (67% so vi 69%), th cc doanh nghip min Bc li cm nhn c s
gia tng ng k nhng kh khn, tr ngi (55% ca nm 2011 ln 71% trong nm 2013).
iu ngc nhin l khi phn tch theo y t thnh th/nng thn th c hai loi doanh
nghip u cm thy iu kin kinh doanh nm 2013 kh khn hn nm 2011 v tri
ngc so vi nm 2009 khi doanh nghip nng thn cm thy t kh khn hn (CIEM,
DoE, ILSSA, 2010).
So snh nm 2011 v 2013, chng ti nhn thy tng lao ng gim 7,4%. T l gim s
lng lao ng ton thi ca cc doanh nghip va v nh ln hn doanh nghip siu
nh. Tuy nhin, mt s tnh/thnh c tng trng vic lm nh Ngh An, Qung Nam
v Lm ng. Hn na, mt s ngnh c tng trng vic lm nh cng nghip ha cht,
cao su, dt may, trong khi mt s ngnh gim lao ng nh sn xut phng tin giao
thng vn ti v sn xut kim loi c bn.
T l sng doanh nghip hng nm gim t 92,2% (giai on 2009-2011) xung cn
90,6% (giai on 2011-2013). Cc tnh/thnh ph nh H Ni, TP H Ch Minh, Hi
Phng, Khnh Ha, H Ty, Lm ng c t l doanh nghip sng st trn mc trung
bnh. Ngoi ra, cc doanh nghip trong ngnh sn xut giy c xc sut thot khi th
trng cao, cho thy p lc cnh tranh nht nh trong ngnh ny.
Mi trng kinh doanh v tng th dng nh khng c ci thin so vi giai on kho
st trc. Trong giai on 2009-2011, t l doanh nghip khng phi i mt vi nhng
tr ngi trong kinh doanh rt thp. Chi ph phi chnh thc v tip cn ti chnh vn l mt
trong nhng vn nghim trng, tng t nh tnh hnh ca giai on 2009-2011.
So snh vi giai on trc, tc chnh thc ha ca doanh nghip gim dn. Khong
8% doanh nghip khng ng k chnh thc trong nm 2011 c giy php ng k kinh
doanh (v m s thu) trong nm 2013. Nm 2011, t l ny l 20% (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA
v UNU-WIDER, 2012). Tng t nh bo co trc, c mt s bng chng cho thy

- 109 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

vic chnh thc ha c tc ng tch cc n tng trng vic lm. Nh vy, Chnh ph
nn tip tc theo ui chnh sch chnh thc ha hin nay. Tuy nhin, chnh thc ha
khng ngn doanh nghip thot khi th trng m ngc li c tc ng tiu cc n t
l sng st.
T l doanh nghip c chi ph phi chnh thc nm 2013 cao hn nm 2011 v tng t
nh nm 2009, kt qu iu tra cho thy chnh thc ha v tng xc sut c chi ph phi
chnh thc c quan h thun chiu. Cc phn tch v mc ch ca cc khon chi ph ph
chnh thc cho thy doanh nghip c cc khon chi ny nhm i ph vi c
quan/ngi thu thu cng nh kt ni vi dch v cng. Tuy nhin, mt phn ln doanh
nghip khng tit l l do. Cui cng, d liu iu tra cho thy doanh nghip hi l c xc
sut thot khi th trng ln hn. Do vy, chin dch thng tin v cc tc ng tiu cc
ca tham nhng c th cn thit gim p lc chi ph phi chnh thc i vi c pha cung
v pha cu..
Mt trong nhng kh khn ca doanh nghip lin quan n khng hong kinh t l gia
tng s lng ngi lao ng b sa thi, i tng tim nng thnh lp doanh nghip
siu nh. V vy, cc chnh sch ng h s hiu qu v khng tn km ca chnh thc ha
c k vng s c li cho khu vc kinh t x hi nhy cm ny.
Cc doanh nghip tng i chuyn mn ha hn so vi nm 2011. Cc doanh nghip ln
hn a dng ha hn so vi cc doanh nghip siu nh. Nh vy, a dng ha sn phm
dng nh khng phi l mt cng c gim thiu ri ro ca cc DNNVV sn xut Vit
Nam. Tng t nh vy, t l i mi gim mnh so vi nm 2011, k c v gii thiu
sn phm mi v ci tin sn phm hin c. c bit, cc doanh nghip siu nh nng
thn l ng lc chnh ca s suy gim ny. Kt qu iu tra cho thy, s suy gim ny c
th l mt vn i vi tnh nng ng trong tng lai, do i mi thng qua vic ci
tin sn phm hin c quan h thun chiu n hiu qu hot ng ca doanh nghip. V
vy, cc chnh sch cn hng trng tm n nng cao nng lc sng to ca cc
DNNVV.
Nng sut lao ng nm 2013 gim so vi nm 2011, c bit l s suy gim ny ch yu
do doanh nghip siu nh nng thn. Cc doanh nghip min Nam c nng sut lao ng
cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip min Bc. c bit cc doanh nghip trong cc ngnh
ni tht v ch bin thc phm suy gim ln nng sut lao ng. Do vy, chnh sch nn
tp trung theo ui tng trng vic lm bn vng v ton din.
T l doanh nghip thc hin u t gim so vi nm 2011. c bit l cc doanh nghip
siu nh thnh th min Nam ng gp chnh vo s st gim ny. S tin trung bnh
ca cc khon u t t li nhun gi li gim so vi nm 2011, t trng cc khon u t
t cc ngun phi chnh thc tng ln. Trong bi cnh u t gim, cc chnh sch kinh t
cn xc nh xu hng gim ny cng vi s chuyn dch sang s dng tn dng phi chnh
thc ca cc DNNVV.

- 110 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Kh nng cung ng tn dng t cc ngun chnh thc dng nh tng ln so vi nm


2011 Tuy nhin, khong 37% doanh nghip vn c th c coi l c kh khn trong tip
cn tn dng, gim 2% so vi nm 2011. T l doanh nghip s dng tn dng phi chnh
thc cao gp 2 ln t l doanh nghip s dng tn dng chnh thc, khong 70% doanh
nghip thuc din kh khn trong tip cn tn dng (trong th trng tn dng chnh thc)
c th tip cn vi cc khon vay t cc ngun phi chnh thc. Ch rng cc khon vay
phi chnh thc ch ti tr 13% tng u t ca doanh nghip, cho thy cc khon vay phi
chnh thc c quy m nh nhng l mt ngun thng xuyn trong hot ng ca
DNNVV. Cc doanh nghip h gia nh c t kh nng vay phi chnh thc hn, c
ngha l nhiu doanh nghip chnh thc (thuc nhm khng c hn ch tn dng) cng da
vo cc ngun tn dng phi chnh thc trong u t. Do vy, cc chnh sch nn to iu
kin tip cn d dng hn cc ngun tn dng chnh thc, phn nh thc t l cc ngun
tn dng phi chnh thc khng th m bo ngun u t bn vng ca DNNVV.
So vi nm 2011, khng c s thay i trong t l lao ng thng xuyn. Tuy nhin, t
l lao ng ton thi gian gim v tng t l lao ng n, lao ng ph thng. Khi nn
kinh t n nh v vng chc, cc doanh nghip c xu hng thu nhiu hn lao ng
thng xuyn v t hn lao ng thi v. Cc s liu v lc lng lao ng t vng kho
st ny cho thy cc doanh nghip vn cha phc hi hon ton t cuc khng hong kinh
t ton cu.
Nh trong nm 2011, cc doanh nghip vn gp kh khn trong tuyn dng. Do t l lao
ng qua o to l tng i cao, dng nh kh khn ny do thiu thng tin th trng
lao ng ch khng phi l thiu lao ng lnh ngh. iu ny cho thy vic tng cng
h thng thng tin s c li cho c ngi lao ng v doanh nghip v c th h tr tm
kim lao ng c k nng ph hp vi yu cu cng vic.
Trnh hc vn ca ngi lao ng cao hn t l thun vi tng trng tin lng. Tuy
nhin, cn lu rng lng ca ngi lao ng trung bnh thay i ng k ty theo ngh
nghip, tt c cc ngnh nam gii c mc lng cao hn n gii. Cng vi mc tng
nh lng ca lao ng n, cc doanh nghip ang s dng nhiu lao ng n hn nh l
mt cch gim chi ph. Lin quan n vic trao quyn cho ngi lao ng, nhng
ngi lm vic trong cc doanh nghip ln c hng li kh nhiu t li nhun doanh
nghip thng qua mt mc lng cao hn. Tnh trung bnh, t l doanh nghip cung cp
tt c cc loi li ch dng nh gim nh so vi nm 2011, nhng c mt s khc bit
rt ln trong cc loi. Chi bo him x hi, bo him y t, bo him tht nghip v ngh
m tng ln so vi nm 2011. Do vy, cc chnh sch gio dc o to v th lao cn
tp trung vo trao quyn cho ngi lao ng.
i vi a s cc DNNVV, cc hot ng thn thin mi trng vn trong nm ngoi
phm vi quan tm mc d vic c chng nhn tiu chun mi trng c th mang li li
th thng mi. Rt t doanh nghip c bt k kin thc thc t v khung php l mi

- 111 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

trng iu chnh mi quan h ca doanh nghip vi mi trng t nhin. Tng ng,


tun th cc quy nh mi trng cn yu c th dn n nhng hu qu tiu cc i vi
mi trng. Vai tr ca Chnh ph trong lnh vc ny l r rng. Cc chnh sch cn c
hng ti nng cao nhn thcca DNNVVv cc vn mi trng v h tr doanh
nghip tun th cc quy nh ca php lut, nh gi hin trng mi trng v nng cao
k nng, trnh .
T l doanh nghip xut khu l 6% trong nm 2013. ng ch l t l doanh nghip
xut khu trong mu vn tng t nm 2009, cho thy kh nng hn ch ca cc doanh
nghip nh trong thm nhp th trng nc ngoi. Doanh nghip ln c kh nng xut
khu ln hn doanh nghip quy m nh. Nhn chung, cc DNVVN xut khu c c trng
l i tc thng mi t hn, gi rng xc doanh nghip xut khu c cu c th cao.
Nhng doanh nghip ny cng c doanh thu bnh qun lao ng ton thi gian cao.
Khng phn bit a im, gn 90% doanh nghip c kho st ang phi i mt vi
cnh tranh gay gt trong lnh vc hot ng. Doanh nghip t nhn c coi l i th
cnh tranh chnh khng phn bit a im v hnh thc s hu. iu ny cho thy nhiu
doanh nghip t mu ca chng ti ang hot ng trong nhng th trng khng hp dn
cho cc doanh nghip ln v hin i. Cc doanh nghip c th tm cch gim thiu cnh
tranh v trnh nhng c sc cu thng qua a dng ha khch hng.
Tm li, bo co ny c cung cp thng tin v thc trng ca DNNVV Vit Nam v

mt s tr ngi chnh ca khu vc doanh nghip ny. Kt qu ca bo co cho thy mt


bc tranh xm mu hn so vi hai nm trc do nh hng ca khng hong ti chnh
vn cn tip din. Bo co tng quan v mi trng kinh doanh ti Vit Nam ny phn
nh nhng thch thc cu trc c bn cn phi c gii quyt thng qua mt lot cc
chnh sch mi vmt chin lc pht trin mi.

- 112 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM

Ti liu tham kho


Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B. & Lawrence, R. Z. (1995). Exporters, Jobs, and Wages in
U.S. Manufacturing: 1976-1987. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics, 1995,
67119.
CIEM, DoE, ILSSA. (2010). Characteristics of the Vietnamese Business Environment:
Evidence from a SME Survey in 2009. Ha Noi: Central Institute for Economic Management.
Retrieved from http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/33627835/SME09FinalReport.pdf
CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER. (2012). Report: Characteristics of the Vietnamese
Business Environment: Evidence from a SME Survey in 2011. Central Institute for Economic
Management. Retrieved from http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/miscellaneous/en_GB/report2012-sme/
EPI. (2014). Country Rankings. Environmental Performance Index. Retrieved from
http://epi.yale.edu/epi/country-rankings
Ericson, R. & Pakes, A. (1995). Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for
Empirical Work. The Review of Economic Studies, 62(1), 5382.
Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. & Syverson, C. (2008). Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and
Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability? American Economic Review, 98(1),
394425.
Gadenne, D. L., Kennedy, J. & McKeiver, C. (2009). An Empirical Study of Environmental
Awareness and Practices in SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 4563.
GSO. (2003). Industrial Complete Survey 2001 - 2003. Hanoi: General Statistics Office Of
Vietnam.
Retrieved
from
http://www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=479&idmid=4&
ItemID=1822
GSO. (2004). Results of Establishment Census of Vietnam 2002: Volume 2 Business
Establishments. Ha Noi: Statistical Publishing House.
GSO. (2007). The Real Situation of Enterprises: Through the Results of Surveys Conducted
in 2004, 2005, 2006. Ha Noi: Statistical Publishing House.
GSO. (2013). Report on the 2012 Vietnam Labour Force Survey. Ha Noi: Statistical
Publishing House.
Hansen, H., Rand, J. & Tarp, F. (2009). Enterprise Growth and Survival in Vietnam: Does
Government Support Matter? Journal of Development Studies, 45(7), 10481069.
Hering, L. & Poncet, S. (2010). Market Access and Individual Wages: Evidence from
China. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(1), 145159.
ILO. (2009). Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Global Economic Crisis:
Impacts and Policy Responses. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

- 113 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the Evolution of Industry. Econometrica, 50(3),
64970.
Jovanovic, B. (1993). The Diversification of Production. C.V. Starr Center for Applied
Economics, New York University. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/cvs/starer/93-11.html
Larsen, A. F., Rand, J. & Torm, N. (2011). Do Recruitment Ties Affect Wages? An
Analysis Using Matched EmployerEmployee Data from Vietnam. Review of Development
Economics, 15(3), 541555.
Liedholm, C. E. & Mead, D. C. (1999). Small Enterprises and Economic Development: The
Dynamics of Micro and Small Enterprises. London and New York: Routledge.
Liu, A. Y. C. (2004). Gender wage gap in Vietnam: 1993 to 1998. Journal of Comparative
Economics, 32(3), 225240.
Malesky, E. (2013). The Vietnam Provincial Competitiveness Index: Measuring Economic
Governance for Private Sector Development. 2012 Final Report. Ha Noi, Vietnam: Vietnam
Chamber of Commerce and Industry and United States Agency for International Developments
Vietnam Competitiveness Initiative.
Newman, C., Rand, J. & Tarp, F. (2013). Industry Switching in Developing Countries. The
World Bank Economic Review, 27(2), 357388.
OECD. (2005). Environment and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises:
Corporate Tools and Approaches. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OMahony, M. & Vecchi, M. (2009). R&D, Knowledge Spillovers and Company
Productivity Performance. Research Policy, 38(1), 3544.
Porter, M. E. & Linde, C. V. D. (1995). Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/product/green-and-competitive-endingthe-stalemate/an/95507-PDF-ENG
Psomas, E. L., Fotopoulos, C. V. & Kafetzopoulos, D. P. (2011). Motives, Difficulties and
Benefits in Implementing the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. Management of
Environmental Quality, 22(4), 502521. Retrieved February 18, 2014,
Rand, J. (2007). Credit Constraints and Determinants of the Cost of Capital in Vietnamese
Manufacturing. Small Business Economics, 29(1/2), 113.
Rand, J., Silva, P., Tarp, F., Cuong, T. T. & Tam, N. T. (2008). Characteristics of the
Vietnamese Business Environment: Evidence from a SME Survey in 2007. Ha Noi: Central
Institute for Economic Management.
Rand, J. & Tarp, F. (2007). Characteristics of the Vietnamese Business Environment:
Evidence from a SME Survey in 2005. Ha Noi: Central Institute for Economic Management.
Rand, J. & Tarp, F. (2011). Does Gender Influence the Provision of Fringe Benefits?
Evidence From Vietnamese SMEs. Feminist Economics, 17(1), 5987.

- 114 -

C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM


Rand, J. & Tarp, F. (2012). Firm-Level Corruption in Vietnam. Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 60(3), 571595.
Rand, J. & Torm, N. (2012). The Benefits of Formalization: Evidence from Vietnamese
Manufacturing SMEs. World Development, 40(5), 983998.
Simpson, M., Taylor, N. & Barker, K. (2004). Environmental Responsibility in SMEs: Does
It Deliver Competitive Advantage? Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(3), 156171.
Soderbom, M., Teal, F. & Wambugu, A. (2005). Unobserved Heterogeneity and the
Relation between Earnings and Firm Size: Evidence from Two Developing Countries. Economics
Letters, 87(2), 153159.
Tybout, J. R. (2000). Manufacturing Firms in Developing Countries: How Well Do They
Do, and Why? Journal of Economic Literature, 38(1), 1144.
Vijverberg, W. M. & Haughton, J. (2004). Household Enterprises in Vietnam: Survival,
Growth, and Living Standards, in: Glewwe, P., Agrawal, N., and Dolalr, D. (Eds.), Economic Growth,
Poverty, and Household Welfare in Vietnam, (pp. 95132). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Retrieved February 19, 2014, from http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/2773.html
Vu, V. H. (2012). Does Export Participation Affect Wages and Employment Quality? The
Case of Vietnamese SMEs. University Library of Munich, Germany. Retrieved from
http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/38696.html
World Bank. (2011). Performance Assessment Review of Investment Climate Assessment in
Five Transforming Economies: Bangladesh, Egypt, Guatemala, Kenya, and Vietnam. Washington,
DC: World Bank. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2011/06/14561035
/performance-assessment-review-investment-climate-assessment-five-transforming-economiesbangladesh-egypt-guatemala-kenya-vietnam
World Bank & IFC. (2013). Doing Business 2014. Understanding Regulations for Small
and Medium-Size Enterprises. Washington, DC: The World Bank and the International Finance
Corporation.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. & Lai, K. (2007). Green Supply Chain Management: Pressures, Practices
and Performance within the Chinese Automobile Industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11
12), 10411052. Retrieved February 18, 2014.

- 115 -

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
EVIDENCE FROM A SME SURVEY IN 2013

CIEM, DoE and ILSSA


October 2014

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

-118-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

Table of Contents
List of Tables........................................................................................................................ 120
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... 122
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................ 123
Preface ................................................................................................................................. 124
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 125
1
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 126
2
Data Description and Sampling ..................................................................................... 128
2.1
Sampling ................................................................................................................... 128
2.2
Implementation ......................................................................................................... 133
2.3
Links to Previous Surveys ......................................................................................... 134
3
The Effect of International Economic Crisis .................................................................. 135
4
Enterprise Growth and Dynamics .................................................................................. 138
4.1
Employment Growth ................................................................................................. 139
4.2
Firm Turnover ........................................................................................................... 143
4.2.1 Firm Entry............................................................................................................. 144
4.2.2 Firm Exit ............................................................................................................... 145
5
Bureaucracy, Informality and Informal Payments.......................................................... 153
5.1
Informality, Growth and Exit .................................................................................... 153
5.2
Taxes and Informal Costs .......................................................................................... 154
6
Investment and Access to Finance ................................................................................. 158
6.1
Investments ............................................................................................................... 158
6.2
Credit ........................................................................................................................ 162
7
Production, Technology and Labour Productivity.......................................................... 168
7.1
Diversification and Innovation .................................................................................. 168
7.2
Labour Productivity Characteristics .......................................................................... 173
7.3
Technology and Technical Efficiency ....................................................................... 175
7.4
Details on Production Inputs and Business Services .................................................. 180
8
Employment ................................................................................................................. 183
8.1
Demographic Structure ............................................................................................. 183
8.2
Workforce Structure and Stability ............................................................................. 184
8.3
Education, Training, Workplace Conditions and Hiring Methods .............................. 187
8.4
Trade Unions ............................................................................................................ 191
8.5
Wage Setting, Social Benefits and Contracts ............................................................. 194
9
Environment ................................................................................................................. 201
10 Trade and Sales Structures ............................................................................................ 209
10.1 Export Behaviour ...................................................................................................... 209
10.2 Perceived Competition and Sales Structures .............................................................. 213
11 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 222
References ............................................................................................................................ 226

-119-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Number of Enterprises Interviewed ...................................................................... 129
Table 2.2: Number of Interviewed Enterprises by Province and Legal Structure in 2013 ....... 129
Table 2.3: Number of Enterprises by Location and Sector in 2013 ........................................ 130
Table 2.4: Number of Enterprises by Size and Location ........................................................ 131
Table 2.5: Number of Enterprises by Ownership Form and Sector in 2013 ............................ 132
Table 2.6: Number of Enterprises by Legal Ownership and Size in 2013 ............................... 132
Table 2.7: Number of Enterprises by Sector and Size in 2013................................................ 133
Table 2.8: Survival Overview ................................................................................................ 134
Table 3.1: Did the International Crisis Negatively Affect the Business Conditions for Firms? ..... 135
Table 3.2: Crisis Transition Matrix ........................................................................................ 135
Table 3.3: International Crisis by Location and Firm Size (Percentages) ............................... 136
Table 3.4: Recent International Crisis Brought Positive Opportunities for Doing Business
(Percentages) ........................................................................................................................ 137
Table 3.5: Opportunity Transition Matrix .............................................................................. 137
Table 4.1: Mean Employment Statistics by Firm Size............................................................ 139
Table 4.2: Employment Transition Matrix ............................................................................. 140
Table 4.3: Employment Growth by Province, Legal Structure and Size ................................. 141
Table 4.4: Employment Growth by Sector............................................................................. 142
Table 4.5: Employment Growth Determinants....................................................................... 143
Table 4.6: New Entrants by Location, Legal Ownership and Size .......................................... 145
Table 4.7: Exit Rates by Location, Legal Ownership, Size and Export Status ........................ 146
Table 4.8: Exit Rates by Years of Operation .......................................................................... 147
Table 4.9: Exit Rates by Sector ............................................................................................. 148
Table 4.10: Sector Switching between 2011 and 2013 ........................................................... 148
Table 4.11: Exit Determinants ............................................................................................... 149
Table 4.12: Temporary Closure by Legal Structure ............................................................... 151
Table 4.13: Temporary Closure in 2011 and Exit in 2013 ...................................................... 152
Table 4.14: Temporary Closure and Sector Change ............................................................... 152
Table 5.1: Formality Summary Statistics ............................................................................... 153
Table 5.2: Formality Transition Matrix ................................................................................. 153
Table 5.3: Firm Dynamics and Formality .............................................................................. 154
Table 5.4: Net-to-Gross Profit Share ..................................................................................... 155
Table 5.5: How Many Enterprises Pay Bribes? ...................................................................... 155
Table 5.6: Temporal Changes in Paying Bribes ..................................................................... 156
Table 5.7: Bribe Determinants: The Usual Suspects .............................................................. 157
Table 5.8: Informal Payments and Firm Dynamics ................................................................ 157
Table 6.1: New Investments .................................................................................................. 158
Table 6.2: Investment Persistence (Investment Transition Matrix) ......................................... 159
Table 6.3: Investment Characteristics .................................................................................... 159
Table 6.4: Investment Financing, by Firm Size and Location ................................................ 160
Table 6.5: Access to Credit ................................................................................................... 162
Table 6.6: Credit Access by Enterprise Category ................................................................... 164

-120-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 6.7: Which Type of Enterprises is Credit Constrained?................................................ 164
Table 6.8: Informal Loans and Credit Constraints ................................................................. 165
Table 6.9: Credit Access Characteristics ............................................................................... 166
Table 7.1: Diversification and Innovation Rates (per cent) .................................................... 168
Table 7.2: Diversification and Innovation, by Sector (per cent) ............................................. 169
Table 7.3: Diversification and Innovation Transition Matrices .............................................. 170
Table 7.4: Diversification and Innovation Characteristics ..................................................... 171
Table 7.5: Diversification, Innovation and Firm Dynamics ................................................... 172
Table 7.6: Labour Productivity by Firm Size and Location ................................................... 173
Table 7.7: Labour Productivity by Sector.............................................................................. 174
Table 7.8: Labour Productivity Characteristics ..................................................................... 175
Table 7.9: Technology Characteristics (per cent) .................................................................. 176
Table 7.10: Effects of Introducing a New Technology .......................................................... 177
Table 7.11: Determinants of Technical Efficiency ................................................................ 180
Table 7.12: Capacity Utilisation in 2013 (per cent) ............................................................... 181
Table 8.1: Labour Force Composition (per cent of total workforce) ...................................... 184
Table 8.2: Labour Force Composition by Occupation (per cent) ........................................... 185
Table 8.3: Occupation Transition Matrix .............................................................................. 186
Table 8.4: Stability of Workforce.......................................................................................... 187
Table 8.5: Difficulties in Hiring Workers .............................................................................. 188
Table 8.6: Recruitment Methods ........................................................................................... 189
Table 8.7: Training of Workforce ......................................................................................... 190
Table 8.8: Education Attainment........................................................................................... 191
Table 8.9: Share of Firms Having a Local Trade Union and Its Members.............................. 192
Table 8.10: Local Trade Unions Dynamics (per cent) ........................................................... 193
Table 8.11: Wage Determinants ............................................................................................ 196
Table 8.12: Wage Setting Basis (per cent)............................................................................. 197
Table 8.13: Social Benefits (per cent) ................................................................................... 198
Table 8.14: Duration of Formal Contracts (per cent of workers)............................................ 200
Table 9.1: Environmental Standards Certificate by Province, Legal Structure and Size (per cent)
............................................................................................................................................. 202
Table 9.2: Environmental Standards Certificate among Household Enterprises by Formality 203
Table 9.3: Environmental Standards Certificate by Sector..................................................... 204
Table 9.4: Difficulty and Cost of Environment Standards Certificate Compliance ................. 207
Table 10.1: Exporting Enterprises (Percentages) ................................................................... 209
Table 10.2: Details on Exporting Enterprises (Percentages) .................................................. 210
Table 10.3: Average Revenue and Net Profit per Full-time Employee ................................... 211
Table 10.4: Export Determinants .......................................................................................... 211
Table 10.5: Perceived Competition from Various Sources .................................................... 214
Table 10.6: Determinants of Perceived Competition ............................................................. 216
Table 10.7: Use of Production (per cent)............................................................................... 217
Table 10.8: Customer Base (per cent) ................................................................................... 218
Table 10.9: Sales Structure (per cent) ................................................................................... 219
Table 10.10: Main Criteria for Setting Prices (per cent) ........................................................ 219
Table 10.11: Determinants of Advertisement ........................................................................ 221

-121-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

List of Figures
Figure 4.1: Most Important Constraints to Growth as Perceived by the Enterprise ................. 138
Figure 4.2: Firm Turnover by Sector ..................................................................................... 144
Figure 4.3: Reasons for Temporary Closure (per cent) .......................................................... 150
Figure 5.1: What is the Bribe Payment Used For? ................................................................. 156
Figure 6.1: How Was the Investment Financed? .................................................................... 160
Figure 6.2: Investment Details 2011-13 (per cent) ................................................................. 161
Figure 6.3: Investment Purpose 2011-2003 (per cent)............................................................ 162
Figure 6.4: Why Enterprises Do Not Apply for Loans? ......................................................... 163
Figure 6.5: Causes of Problems for Getting the Loan............................................................. 165
Figure 7.1: The Most Important Problem of Introducing a New Product (per cent) ................ 173
Figure 7.2: New Technology ................................................................................................. 176
Figure 7.3: Average Technical Efficiency (TE) ..................................................................... 178
Figure 7.4: Details on Suppliers of Raw Materials ................................................................. 182
Figure 7.5: Identification and Main Criteria for Selecting Suppliers ...................................... 182
Figure 8.1: Demographic Structure of Firm Owners and Managers ....................................... 183
Figure 8.2: Trade Union Chairman ........................................................................................ 194
Figure 8.3: Average Monthly Wage in 2013 (in 1,000 VND) ................................................ 194
Figure 8.4: Average Monthly Real Wage by Occupation (in 1,000 VND) ............................. 195
Figure 8.5: Social Benefits, by Gender of Owner or Manager (per cent) ................................ 199
Figure 8.6: Formal Contracts, by Gender of Owner or Manager ............................................ 199
Figure 9.1: Knowledge about Environmental Law ( per cent) ................................................ 205
Figure 9.2: Reason to Get an Environmental Standards Certificate (per cent) ........................ 206
Figure 9.3: Which Environmental Factors Enterprises Treat? (per cent) ................................ 208
Figure 9.4: Investments in Equipment for Environmental Standards (billion VND, real values)
............................................................................................................................................. 208
Figure 10.1: Export and Import Destinations ......................................................................... 212
Figure 10.2: Perceived Competition (Percentage) .................................................................. 214
Figure 10.3: Main Difficulties in Selling Accumulated Goods (per cent) ............................... 216
Figure 10.4: Location of Customers (per cent)....................................................................... 218
Figure 10.5: Type of Advertisement (per cent) ...................................................................... 220

-122-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

Acronyms and Abbreviations


BRC

Business Registration Certificate

BSPS

Business Sector Programme Support

CIEM

Central Institute for Economic Management

CPI

Consumer Price Index

DOLISA

Department of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs

ESC

Environmental Standards Certificate

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment

HCMC

Ho Chi Minh City

ILSSA

Institute for Labour Science and Social Affairs

ISIC

International Standard Industrial Classification

GSO

General Statistics Office

HH

Household

MOLISA

Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs

MONRE

Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment

MPI

Ministry of Planning and Investment

Number of Observations

OLS

Ordinary Least Squares

SD

Standard Deviation

SME

Small and Medium sized Enterprise

USD

United States Dollar

VHLSS

Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey

VND

Vietnamese Dong

-123-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

Preface
This report represents the fifth time that the small and medium enterprise (SME)
survey has been conducted. The results of previous survey rounds, and in particular those of
2005, 2007, 2009and 2011 inspired the Central Institute for Economic Management (CIEM)
of the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI), the Institute of Labour Science and
Social Affairs (ILSSA) of the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA),
the Department of Economics (DoE) of the University of Copenhagen and UNU-WIDER
together with the Royal Embassy of Denmark in Vietnam, to plan and carry out another
survey in 2013. The survey on which the present report is based builds on these previous
four rounds. The fieldwork behind this report consisted of face-to-face interviews during the
months of June, July and August of 2013 of around 2,500 small and medium sized non-state
enterprises operating in the manufacturing sector. It was carried out in ten provinces, namely
the cities of Hanoi, Hai Phong and Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), and Ha Tay1, Phu Tho,
Nghe An, Quang Nam, Khanh Hoa, Lam Dong and Long An. The present report is based on
enterprises that were also interviewed in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011. Subsequent studies
will make use of the fact that a sample of approximately 2,500 SMEs is available, including
a representative panel dating back to 2005.
The SME surveys were designed as collaborative research efforts with the objective of
collecting and analysing data representative of the private sector as a whole in Vietnam. This
means that not only large or formally registered enterprises are interviewed. Rather, the
SME thus focuses on building on the substantial database already being collected through
other initiatives in Vietnam, with a specific focus on collecting data and gaining an
understanding of the SME dynamics in Vietnam.
The present report provides an overview of key insights from the SME 2013 database,
comparing as appropriate with data from 2011 and earlier survey rounds. It should be noted,
however, that the report is by no means exhaustive of all of the data collected, and the reader
is encouraged to refer to the questionnaires (available on-line) that were used in the
collection of data to see the comprehensive set of issues addressed. Further in-depth studies
of selected issues on the Vietnamese private sector economy, exploiting the database, are
underway.

Ha Tay province was merged into Ha Noi at the start of 2009. However, in this report Ha Tay is
maintained as a separate province such that results can be compared with previous years.

-124-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

Acknowledgements
The team of authors behind the present report is grateful to the President of CIEM, Dr.
Nguyen Dinh Cung, Former Vice President, Ms. Vu Xuan Nguyet Hong and the Director of
ILSSA, Dr. Nguyen Thi Lan Huong, who have guided our work from beginning to end, and
ensured effective collaboration between all partners.
The core research team was led by Professor John Rand. The team also included Dr.
Neda Trifkovic from the DoE. Mr. Bui Van Dung and Mr. Nguyen Thanh Tam from CIEM
were also part of the research team. Professor Finn Tarp coordinated and supervised the
research effort through all its stages.
Our work would not have been possible without professional interaction, advice and
encouragement from a large number of individuals and institutions. We would in particular
like to highlight our thanks for the productive and stimulating collaboration with the survey
and data teams from ILSSA. They were coordinated by Dr. Nuyen Thi Lan Huong and her
staff. Without the tireless efforts of ILSSA in compiling the questionnaires, training
enumerators, implementing the survey in the field and cleaning the data, all other work
would have been in vain.
The study team would like to express appreciation for the time that the surveyed SMEs
made available in 2013 during the interviews carried out as part of this study. It is hoped that
the present report will prove useful in the search for policies geared towards improving their
business operations and livelihoods.
Finally, while advice has been received from many colleagues and friends, the
research team takes full responsibility for any remaining errors or shortcomings in
interpretation. All the usual caveats apply.

-125-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

1. INTRODUCTION
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) continue to be central to the Vietnamese
development process. Understanding the constraints ahead of SMEsand the potential of
these firms remains important, as the private sector in Vietnam continues to account for an
increasing share of economic growth and employment.
One of the growing influences on the business conditions under which Vietnamese
SMEs operate has been the recent international economic crisis. The crisis has contributed to
changes in the external environment for firms of all sizes and it has brought a set of
challenges and opportunities for SMEs because of a variety of size related influences. Postcrisis policies have been developed to maintain the competitiveness of Vietnamese SMEs
and the tracer survey nature of the data collected provides a unique opportunity for policy
relevant research, which can provide deeper insights into the dynamics of the SME sector in
Vietnam and improve the possibilities of supporting its further development in an effective
manner. In this respect, the 2013 survey is important for analysing how persistent the impact
of the international financial crisis has been on Vietnamese SMEs. The report investigates
the effect of the crisis in Chapter 3 and, by analysing a set of issues that characterise SME
day-to-day activities subsequent chapters offer a more in-depth picture of the reach and
consequences of the crisis.
Flexibility in face of international crisis can be seen as one of the crucial elements for
increasing economic development. It is, therefore, instructive to look at the firm turnover,
measured as a rate of firm creation and destruction, when assessing the responsiveness of the
SME sector to changing business environment. The report specifically looks at enterprise
growth and firm turnover in Chapter 4. The results show a decrease in total employment of
7.4 per cent and overall, we see a higher rate of firm exit than entry alongside the changes in
main sectors of production and temporary closures. We explore in Chapter 5 whether these
changes are related to the main indicators of business environment such as bureaucracy,
doing business informality and informal payments. Continual improvement of the business
environment is important for sectors seeking to benet from greater trade and investment.
This year, we find a slightly more challenging situation for SMEs when deciding about
becoming formally registered or using informal payments to achieve their business goals.
That formalisation is having a positive employment growth effect was confirmed in this
survey round, so the obvious step forward is to continue current formalisation policies.
Another way of measuring how conducive the business environment is for the SME
growth is by looking at access to finance and investment behaviour. This is done in
Chapter 6. In this area we find only a slightly lower share of credit constrained enterprises
compared to 2011 and somewhat better access to formal means of credit. However, the use
of informal credit remains twice as high compared to formal financing. This greatly affects
the investment behaviour of SMEs, who are found to be investing less in their business
than in 2011.

-126-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Characteristics of production and technology, as well as labour productivity are
investigated in Chapter 7. Special focus is given to assessing the level of diversification and
innovation. Just like in the 2011 report, we find an increasing trend towards specialisation,
but a much lower rate of innovation, measured by the number of new products that have
been introduced and by the number of existing products that have been modified.
Several dimensions of employment conditions are investigated in Chapter 8. We
analysed workforce structure and stability; education, training, workplace conditions and
hiring methods; trade unions, as well as the wage setting, social benefits and employment
contracts. The general impression is that the SME labour structure has remained very similar
to 2011, with only a slightly higher use of female labour. Especially, the advantage in
employment is given to highly educated women. Compared to 2011, more firms offer
training to new employees and face challenges in attracting employees with the appropriate
level of skills. Considering these findings, it appears that surpassing the obstacles in
information flow between the employers and the employees could bring positive
developments in the labour market.
Reducing their environmental impact is a challenge to SMEs all over the world with
the rising pressures to move to environment-friendly products and practices. This year, we
revisit the enterprises use of environmental certification in Chapter 9. The knowledge about
environmental legislation and the use of certification remain as weak now as in the previous
survey periods. Taking steps to raise the environmental awareness and knowledge about
existing legislation among SMEs is seen as a crucial component feeding into the current
development policies and debates.
The final Chapter investigates commercial behaviour of SMEs by looking at trade and
sales structures. The results show the same rate of enterprises that export as in 2011, with
the main foreign markets remaining nearby Asian countries. Corroborating our initial
impression that the conditions of business environment have become more challenging for
SMEs, the final chapter reveals that firms feel much more exposed to competition than in
previous years.
This report concludes by emphasising that the past two years have brought many
challenges to SMEs. These challenges reflect two major concerns: how to improve
organisational performance and how to improve integration in global economy by balancing
between the development, innovation and business continuity. The key message is, as in the
years before, the need to link the SMEs and government activities in business and policy
efforts conductive to economic growth.

-127-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


2. DATA DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLING
2.1. Sampling
The previous SME surveys in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 included a comprehensive
survey of between 2,500 and 2,800 enterprises in the same 10 provinces, where surviving
firms were re-interviewed each survey year (tracer survey). The sampling procedure in 2013
followed that of 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011. The population of non-state manufacturing
enterprises in the 10 selected provinces is based on two data sources from the General
Statistics Office of Vietnam (GSO): The Establishment Census from 2002 (GSO, 2004) and
the Industrial Survey 2004-2006(GSO, 2007). From the Establishment Census we obtain the
number of individual business establishments that do not satisfy the conditions stated in the
Law on Enterprises of Vietnam. In the following we refer to this category of enterprises as
household enterprises. We combine this information with data on enterprises formally
registered under the Law on Enterprises at the province level from the Industrial Survey
(GSO, 2003). This provides us with additional information on private, collectives,
partnerships, private limited enterprises and joint stock enterprises. Joint ventures have been
excluded from the sampling framework due to high and often unclear nature of government
and foreign involvement in such ownership structures. Additional sampling-related details can
be found in previous reports (for example CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012).
The 2013 sample is drawn from the same population identified for the in 2005, 2007,
2009 and 2011 surveys (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012; CIEM, DoE, ILSSA,
2010; Rand et al., 2008; Rand & Tarp, 2007). However, the tracer survey feature of the data
will to some extent capture legal structure changes as incumbent firms graduate to become
formal entities. Moreover, exit firms were randomly replaced based on the following two
criteria: (i) a constant level of household firms based on the information in GSO (2004) and
(ii) the new 2013 population of firms registered under the Law on Enterprises obtained from
the GSO (forthcoming).
A unique trait of the SME survey data is that it includes both registered and nonregistered (informal) household firms. These informal household firms (without a business
registration license or tax code and not registered with District authorities) were also
included in the survey based on on-site identification. Thus, all of the informal firms
included in the survey operate alongside officially registered enterprises. Including some
firms not registered with the authorities is an important contribution and quite unique in
Vietnam. Nevertheless, it is important to note that our sample of informal firms is not
representative of the informal sector as a whole in Vietnam, since the sampling scheme of
the SME survey is based on the GSO business censuses and surveys, which cover only part
of the informal sector.
Table 2.1 shows that 2,461 enterprises were interviewed in 2013. Some enterprises
report that they are not in manufacturing (33 in services) even though they are registered in
official records as producers of manufacturing goods. For comparison, column 2 in Table
2.1 shows the number of enterprises interviewed in the 2011survey in each province. Panel
data information on 1,988 firms is available for analysis.

-128-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 2.1: Number of Enterprises Interviewed
Interviewed in 2013

Interviewed in 2011

280
255
342
182
343
160
88
77
600
134

268
251
340
200
345
155
94
76
568
122

2,461

2,419

Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
HCMC
Long An
Total

Note: The balanced panel includes 1,988 firm observations each year.

In all areas the samples were stratified by ownership type to ensure the inclusion of all
categories of non-state enterprises, including household, private, partnership/collective,
limited liability companies and joint stock enterprises. Table 2.2 documents the number of
non-state manufacturing enterprises interviewed in each ownership form category. Of all
interviewed enterprises, 63 per cent are household enterprises and as they comprise
approximately 90 per cent of the firm population, this means that non-household enterprises
are over-represented in the survey.
A number of characteristics are commonly associated with enterprise dynamics, in
particular location, sector, legal ownership form and firm size, all of which proxy for
variations in market characteristics and/or enterprise organisation. Tables 2.2 to 2.7 show
different tabulations of typical determinants of enterprise dynamics.
Table 2.2: Number of Interviewed Enterprises by Province and Legal Structure in 2013

Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
HCMC
Long An
Sample total

Household
enterprises

Private/sole
proprietorship

117
222
270
81
250
119
53
55
284
102
1,553

21
4
9
20
24
11
13
10
68
18
198

Partnership/
Collective/
Cooperative
13
4
1
15
5
2
1
0
13
1
55

-129-

Limited
liability
company
94
20
53
42
42
26
19
12
225
13
546

Joint stock
company

Total

35
5
9
24
22
2
2
0
10
0
109

280
255
342
182
343
160
88
77
600
134
2,461

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 2.3 focuses on sectors and location of enterprises. Sector codes are based on the
International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) codes. First, we see that the three
largest sectors in terms of number of enterprises are Food Processing (ISIC 15), Fabricated
Metal Products (ISIC 28) and Manufacturing of Wood Products (ISIC 20). These sectors
were also most prevalent in the 2011 SME survey. Moreover, this corresponds well with the
observed sector distribution reported in GSO (2004, 2007).
Table 2.3: Number of Enterprises by Location and Sector in 2013
ISIC
codes

Ha Noi

Phu Ha Hai Nghe Quang Khanh Lam


Long
HCMC
Tho Tay Phong An Nam Hoa Dong
An

15
Food and beverages
71 117 87
40
120
56
17
Textiles
6
5
48
3
2
0
18
Wearing apparel etc.
18
1
4
8
20
4
19
Tanning and dressing leather
6
1
2
6
0
6
20
Wood and wood products
14
43 97
12
35
16
21
Paper and paper products
14
7
3
3
4
1
22
Publishing, printing etc.
13
0
2
8
1
4
23
Refined petroleum etc.
1
1
1
1
1
0
24
Chemical products etc.
11
1
3
1
8
0
25
Rubber and plastic products
33
3
7
11
2
2
26
Non-metallic mineral products 14
8
8
8
15
7
27
Basic metals
6
0
0
1
8
1
28
Fabricated metal products
48
45 28
51
61
41
29-32 Machinery
10
0
8
8
2
3
34
Motor vehicles etc.
2
0
0
0
0
0
35
Transport equipment
0
0
2
1
3
0
36
Furniture etc.
11
19 39
13
53
19
37
Recycling
0
0
1
0
0
0
SER Services
2
4
2
7
8
0
Total
280 255 342 182 343 160
Per cent
(11.4) (10.4) (13.9) (7.4) (13.9) (6.5)

38
0
2
3
9
1
2
0
1
4
6
2
13
1
0
1
5
0
0
88
(3.6)

29
144
3
29
0
54
5
21
2
11
2
37
1
30
0
0
2
25
1
64
2
21
1
4
18
87
2
30
1
9
0
2
8
20
0
3
0
9
77
600
(3.1) (24.4)

Total Per cent

53
755
0
96
4
115
0
50
7
246
0
72
3
64
3
8
0
52
4
131
13
102
4
27
29
421
1
65
0
12
0
9
11
198
1
5
1
33
134 2,461
(5.4) (100.0)

(30.7)
(3.9)
(4.7)
(2.0)
(10.0)
(2.9)
(2.6)
(0.3)
(2.1)
(5.3)
(4.1)
(1.1)
(17.1)
(2.6)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(8.0)
(0.2)
(1.3)
(100.0)

Note: Number of firms (group percentages in parentheses).

Table 2.4 shows locations and enterprise sizes.2 We see that two-third of the sample is
in the micro firm category with 1 to 9 employees. Moreover, enterprises in larger urban
areas (Ha Noi and HCMC) have a smaller share of micro enterprises than rural provinces.
2

We classify micro, small, medium and large scale enterprise according to the current World Bank definition. The
World Bank SME Department operates with three groups of small and medium-sized enterprises: micro-, small-, and
medium-scale. Micro-enterprises have up to 10 employees, small-scale enterprises up to 50 employees, medium-sized
enterprises up to 300 employees, while large enterprises have over 300 employees. Our size categories are based on the
number of full-time, part-time and casual workers. This definition was accepted by the Vietnamese Government, for
example in the Government Decree no. 90/2001/CP-ND on Supporting for Development of Small and Medium
Enterprises until the publication of the Decree 56/2009/ND-CP in which enterprises are defined as small if they employ
between 10 and 200 persons and medium if they employ between 200 and 300 persons in all sectors apart from trade and
services in which the small category employs between 10 and 50 employees and medium category employs up to 100
employees. The micro category is the same as in the definition we use. We have kept the classification of the enterprise
categories the same as before to maintain the comparability with reports issued in previous years. It is beyond the scope of
this report to investigate the impact of the changed SME size definition on the results.

-130-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 2.4: Number of Enterprises by Size and Location
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
HCMC
Long An
Total
Per cent

Micro
147
(52.5)
229
(89.8)
256
(74.9)
121
(66.5)
282
(82.2)
135
(84.4)
62
(70.5)
57
(74.0)
364
(60.7)
110
(82.1)
1,763
(71.6)

Small
111
(39.6)
20
(7.8)
76
(22.2)
43
(23.6)
44
(12.8)
22
(13.8)
23
(26.1)
17
(22.1)
189
(31.5)
21
(15.7)
566
(23.0)

Medium
22
(7.9)
6
(2.4)
10
(2.9)
18
(9.9)
17
(5.0)
3
(1.9)
3
(3.4)
3
(3.9)
47
(7.8)
3
(2.2)
132
(5.4)

Total
280
(100.0)
255
(100.0)
342
(100.0)
182
(100.0)
343
(100.0)
160
(100.0)
88
(100.0)
77
(100.0)
600
(100.0)
134
(100.0)
2,461
(100.0)

Per cent
(11.4)
(10.4)
(13.9)
(7.4)
(13.9)
(6.5)
(3.6)
(3.1)
(24.4)
(5.4)
(100.0)

Note: Figures in number of firms and for each location the share of firms in each size category (group
percentages in parenthesis). Micro: 1-9 employees; Small: 10-49 employees; Medium: 50-299 employees (World
Bank definition).

Table 2.5 shows that 63 per cent of enterprises in our sample are categorised as
household enterprises. An above average percentage of firms in the food processing category
are registered as household establishments (40per cent). The same can be said for firms in
fabricated metal products (ISIC 28) and wood processing (ISIC 20). Limited liability
companies are most commonly found in categories: food processing (ISIC 15), fabricated
metal (ISIC 28), rubber and plastic products (ISIC 25). Paper and paper products (ISIC 21),
publishing and printing (ISIC 22), chemical products (ISIC 24) and machinery (ISIC 29-35)
are also mostly produced by limited liability companies. Private enterprises tend to process
food, metal and wood, while firms with cooperative agreements tend to process wood, rubber
and plastic. Joint stock companies are mostly found in food processing, metal fabrication,
rubber and plastic production and non-metallic mineral production.

-131-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 2.5: Number of Enterprises by Ownership Form and Sector in 2013
ISIC

Household
Private/sole Partnership/ Limited
establishment proprietorship Collective/ liability
Cooperative company
15 Food products and beverages
615
39
5
78
17 Textiles
63
2
1
26
18 Wearing apparel etc.
50
12
3
45
19 Tanning and dressing leather
33
5
2
8
20 Wood and wood products
176
16
10
36
21 Paper and paper products
12
12
3
37
22 Publishing, printing etc.
17
12
0
33
23 Refined petroleum etc.
6
1
0
1
24 Chemical products etc.
15
5
3
27
25 Rubber and plastic products
42
14
10
55
26 Non-metallic mineral products
57
10
5
20
27 Basic metals
12
4
3
7
28 Fabricated metal products
278
40
4
82
29- Machinery
17
8
0
31
32 (incl. office + electrical)
34 Motor vehicles etc.
4
4
0
4
35 Transport equipment
4
2
1
2
36 Furniture etc.
142
10
1
38
37 Recycling
4
0
0
1
SER Services
6
2
4
15
Total
1,553
196
66
503
Per cent
(63.1)
(8.0)
(2.2)
(22.2)

Joint stock
company

Total Per cent

18
4
5
2
8
8
2
0
2
10
10
1
17

755
96
115
50
246
72
64
8
52
131
102
27
421

(30.7)
(3.9)
(4.7)
(2.0)
(10.0)
(2.9)
(2.6)
(0.3)
(2.1)
(5.3)
(4.1)
(1.1)
(17.1)

65

(2.6)

0
0
7
0
6
95
(4.4)

12
(0.5)
9
(0.4)
198
(8.0)
5
(0.2)
33
(1.3)
2,461 (100.0)
(100.0)

Note: Number of firms (group percentages in parenthesis).

Table 2.6 shows that 62 per cent of medium firms are registered as limited liability
companies, as compared to only 10 per cent of micro firms. Exactly one half of small firms
are registered as limited liability companies. Around 14 per cent of small firms are privately
owned, while 5 per cent of the same category is registered as a partnership or a cooperative.
Joint stock firms are medium-sized in 22 per cent of cases and small in 10 per cent of cases.
Eighty-one per cent of all micro firms are household establishments, which is highly
relevant when discussing the possible growth contribution effects of transitioning from
informal to formal firm structures (Rand & Torm, 2012 for further discussion of this issue;
see Rand & Tarp, 2012).
Table 2.6: Number of Enterprises by Legal Ownership and Size in 2013
Household establishment
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company
Total
Per cent

Micro
1,435
103
18
181
26
1,763
(71.6)

-132-

Small
118
80
31
283
54
566
(23.0)

Medium
0
15
6
82
29
132
(5.4)

Total
1,553
198
55
546
109
2,461
(100.0)

Per cent
(63.1)
(8.0)
(2.2)
(22.2)
(4.4)
(100.0)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Finally, Table 2.7 illustrates a large variation of enterprise size across sectors. In the
food processing sector, for example, around 84 per cent of the enterprises are micro-sized, as
compared to 13 and 3 per cent of small and medium firms, respectively. As a comparison, the
share of micro firms in paper product sector (ISIC 21) is 37.5. Small firms surpass the number
of micro firms also in production of chemicals (ISIC 24) and rubber (ISIC 25). Publishing and
printing (ISIC 22), motor vehicles (ISIC 34) and recycling (ISIC 37) appear to be the domain
of micro and small firms, as there are no medium-sized firms in these sectors.
Table 2.7: Number of Enterprises by Sector and Size in 2013
ISIC
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29-32
34
35
36
37
SER
Total

Food products and beverages


Textiles
Wearing apparel etc.
Tanning and dressing leather
Wood and wood products
Paper and paper products
Publishing, printing etc.
Refined petroleum etc.
Chemical products etc.
Rubber and plastic products
Non-metallic mineral products
Basic metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery (incl office + electrical)
Motor vehicles etc.
Transport equipment
Furniture etc.
Recycling
Services

Per cent

Micro

Small

Medium

Total

637
59
59
34
182
27
43
5
23
61
55
17
344
29
7
6
152
4
19

97
32
42
14
54
34
21
2
25
55
30
9
63
27
5
2
40
1
13

21
5
14
2
10
11
0
1
4
15
17
1
14
9
0
1
6
0
1

755
96
115
50
246
72
64
8
52
131
102
27
421
65
12
9
198
5
33

Per
cent
(30.7)
(3.9)
(4.7)
(2.0)
(10.0)
(2.9)
(2.6)
(0.3)
(2.1)
(5.3)
(4.1)
(1.1)
(17.1)
(2.6)
(0.5)
(0.4)
(8.0)
(0.2)
(1.3)

1,763

566

132

2,461

(100.0)

(71.6)

(23.0)

(5.4)

(100.0)

Note: Figures in number of firm (group percentages in parenthesis).

2.2. Implementation
The survey was confined to specific areas in each province/city to ease
implementation. Following the practice from previous survey rounds, the sample was drawn
randomly from a list of enterprises based on the population of non-state manufacturing
firms. Stratified sampling was used to ensure adequate number of enterprises in each
province with different ownership forms. In cases of mismatch of official household firm
records, on-site identification of formal and informal household firms substituted for the preselected household firms. This enabled the inclusion of non-registered household entities
operating alongside formal enterprises.
A training course of the enumerators was held prior to the implementation of the
survey in the summer of 2013. This provided an occasion to identify and resolve remaining

-133-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


ambiguities and possible sources of misinterpretation of the questions in the survey
instrument. As enumerators had considerable prior experience, the training course took the
form of a joint discussion that yielded a valuable feedback on the questionnaire design.
The enterprise survey was carried out by ten survey teams. The interviewers included
researchers from Institute for Labour Science and Social Affairs (ILSSA), staff from
different departments of Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA) and ten
representatives from Department of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (DOLISA). Each
team was composed of one team leader (supervisor) and several interviewers. The number
of interviewers in each team depended on the size of the sample in each area. The actual
survey was undertaken in two stages. In the first stage, enumerators went to the survey areas
to identify the repeat enterprises and to obtain the complete list of enterprises from the local
authorities. In some cases enterprises had changed location or owner since the last survey in
2011, and determining whether the enterprises were still in existence often involved
considerable work. Based on these visits, updated lists of the repeat enterprises were
prepared and random samples of the new enterprises were drawn. The second stage of the
survey was launched in the autumn of 2013 and lasted for three months. In this stage,
implementation of the survey questionnaire was carried out through personal visits and
direct interviews. Initial checking and cleaning of the data was undertaken in the field.
Following data entry, a second round of data cleaning was undertaken and the 2013 data
were merged with data files from the 2011 to check consistency.

2.3. Links to Previous Surveys


In Table 2.8 we document the survival rate of the previously surveyed firms. Some
1,988 enterprises were tracked down and accepted to participate in survey, leaving 431
enterprises as confirmed exit enterprises. Some 30 enterprises (7 per cent of potential exits)
were lost during the sampling or when approached declined to answer the questionnaire. They
are therefore excluded in both the 2011 and 2013 data. The data show that the annual survival
rate between 2011 and 2013 was 90.6, representing a small decrease from the figure of 92.2
per cent observed between 2009 and 2011. This level is comparable to the 9 to 10 per cent
average exit rate cited by Liedholm and Mead (1999) for a number of developing countries.
Table 2.8: Survival Overview
Surveyed in 2011

2011
2,419
(2,449)

Survivors
Exit confirmed

Survival rate
Annual survival rate
Newly surveyed
Total surveyed in 2013

2013
1,988
431
82.2
90.6
473
2,461

Note: We had difficulties tracking down (previous) owners of closed enterprises. Some enterprises could not be found
or owners declined to answer the questionnaire. A total of 93per cent (431 out of 461) are confirmed exits.

In the following sections, we concentrate on the 2013 survey. However, in some


cases we link the information back to the 2011and 2009 surveys in order to follow the
enterprise development.

-134-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


3. THE EFFECT OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CRISIS
Based on direct questions on the perceived effects of the international crisis directed to
firm owners and managers, we see from Table 3.1 that 62 per cent of the firms interviewed
in 2011 reported that the international crisis had a negative effect on the business conditions
of firms. This number increased to 68.3 per cent in 2013. Taking a look at the balanced
panel, the difference between 2011 and 2013 becomes even higher with a higher proportion
of firms stating that they have experienced negative consequences of the crisis.
Table 3.1: Did the International Crisis Negatively Affect
the Business Conditions for Firms?
Full sample

2011
2013
2011
2013

Balanced panel

Obs.
(2,419)
(2,461)
(1,988)
(1,988)

Per cent Yes


61.9
68.3
61.1
69.4

Table 3.1 suggests that the effects of crisis are longer-lasting than initially believed.
The crisis transition matrix (Table 3.2) reveals that 62 per cent of the firms answering No
to having experienced doing business problems due to the 2008 international crisis in the
2011 survey, reported in 2013 to have been affected by the crisis. On the other hand, 26 per
cent of the firms stating that the crisis had an effect on their doing business conditions in
2011, reported in the 2013 survey that the initial negative effects of the crisis is no longer
affecting the firm considerably. Table 3.2 also shows that only 294 out of 1,988 enterprises
(14.8 per cent) report in both surveys not to have been affected by the crisis.
Table 3.2: Crisis Transition Matrix
Crisis No 2011
Crisis Yes 2011
Total
Per cent

Crisis No 2013
294
(38.0)
316
(26.0)
610
(30.6)

Crisis Yes 2013


479
(62.0)
899
(74.0)
1,378
(69.4)

Total
773
(100.0)
1,215
(100.0)
1,988
(100.0)

Per cent
(38.9)
(61.1)
(100.0)

Note: Percentage in parenthesis.

Table 3.3 shows that urban firms have been more exposed to the 2007/08 international
crisis (as perceived by the owners and managers). Compared to 2011 when the effects of
the crisis were more felt in the south, the observations from 2013 indicate that the crisis
affected to a higher extent firms in the north. The only decline in the severity of
perceptions about the crisis is detectable for the firms in the south. Just as in 2011,
household firms appear to have been less exposed to the crisis compared to formal
enterprises. Along the same dimension we see an increase in the number of firms feeling
affected by the crisis in all size categories. The lowest indication of the increase can be

-135-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


seen in case of medium-sized firms. One of the possible explanations for this is that the
credit access for this firm category has improved between 2011 and 2013, while it has
declined for smaller firms (see Section 6.2 Credit).
Table 3.3: International Crisis by Location and Firm Size (Percentages)
Year
All firms
Micro
Small
Medium
Urban
Rural
South
North

2011
61.9
55.1
72.6
82.6
70.3
54.7
69.2
55.1

2013
68.3
65.0
79.4
84.7
75.8
64.8
66.8
71.2

Note: Balanced panel (1,988 observations each year)

Firms are employing different measures to cope with the crisis, among which reducing
production costs (58%) and finding new markets for output (49%) are the most frequently
attempted. Around one-fifth of firms attempts changing or otherwise innovating services and
activities. It was inevitable for some of the SMEs to reduce the size or change the
composition of labour force. While 13 per cent of firms reacted to the crisis by reassigning
workers within the enterprise, 9 per cent of enterprises turned to lay-offs. It was shown in
other contexts that such workers are prime candidates for establishing own micro-enterprises
(ILO, 2009). Their success in seeking out and exploiting new business opportunities clearly
depends on the conditions for doing business in terms of access to credit, level of
bureaucracy and market functioning.
In 2011 around 5 per cent of enterprises believed that the crisis created some
opportunities for the firm, and it was especially more well-established larger firms that were
able to reap the potential benefits (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). This tendency has remained,
as 8 per cent of firms in 2013 believe that the international crisis has brought positive
incentives to firms doing business conditions (Table 3.4). Looking at the location of firms,
we see that rural and urban firms share similar beliefs about the opportunities brought by the
crisis. The difference between urban and rural firms comes from the fact that rural firms are
more likely to perceive the crisis as beneficial now than two years ago. Urban firms have not
changed their perception about the crisis by much since 2011. Firms located in both south
and north show an increasing tendency to see the crisis as a beneficial market characteristic.
Northern firms have become more optimistic in that regard in the past two years. Comparing
the surveyed firms by size, we see that medium-sized firms were more likely than small and
micro firms to find opportunities in the crisis. Only small-sized firms feel less optimistic
about the crisis compared to 2011.
Finally, the opportunity transition matrix in Table 3.5 reveals that only 16 out of 1,988
firms consistently report that they believe that the international crisis has provided positive

-136-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


business opportunities. These few firms feel that the positive effect comes through the
accessibility of cheaper inputs, less competition and increased availability of skilled labour.
Table 3.4: Recent International Crisis Brought Positive Opportunities
for Doing Business (Percentages)

All firms
Urban
Rural
South
North
Micro
Small
Medium
Observations

Full sample
2011
2013
5.6
7.9
10.7
7.9
1.7
7.9
5.4
7.5
5.7
8.3
4.1
7.9
9.0
7.1
8.3
12.1
(2,419)
(2,464)

Balanced panel
2011
2013
4.7
8.0
8.8
7.6
1.8
8.4
5.1
7.0
4.4
8.8
3.6
8.0
7.3
7.0
5.8
14.3
(1,988)
(1,988)

Note: Number of observations in parentheses.

These results show that the majority of SMEs perceive that the international crisis has
had a significantly negatively impact on the conditions for doing business. However, these
conclusions are based on perceptions of the enterprises surveyed. And while one should not
doubt the validity of their responses, analysing whether these perceived effects of the
international crisis are confirmed in the firm dynamics patterns (survival/exit and growth)
remains one of the central topics of this report.
Table 3.5: Opportunity Transition Matrix
Opportunity No
2013

Opportunity Yes
2013

Total

Per cent

1,751

144

1,895

(95.3)

(92.4)

(7.6)

(100.0)

77

16

93

(4.7)

(82.8)
1,828
(92.0)

(17.2)
160
(8.0)

(100.0)
1,988
(100.0)

(100.0)

Opportunity No
2011
Opportunity Yes
2011
Total
Per cent

Note: Percentage in parenthesis.

-137-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


4. ENTERPRISE GROWTH AND DYNAMICS
Given that the international crisis and the business environment appear to have
worsened from the enterprise point of view, it is interesting to explore the factors driving
dynamic changes in the SME sector and its component parts. We begin this section by
looking at the perceptions of enterprises of the problems faced when doing business and
how these problems have changed over time. Then, we explore the enterprise dynamics in
terms of employment growth and firm exit.
Overall, the proportion of Vietnamese SMEs that face important constraints to firm
growth is very high. In 2013, 84 per cent of firms experienced some constraints. This is a
slight increase (of one percentage point) compared to 2011. The share of firms that believe
they face no constraints is 16 per cent and this level has kept from 2009 (CIEM, DoE,
ILSSA, 2010). Figure 4.1 shows perceptions of surveyed SMEs about the most important
constraints to growth.
Figure 4.1: Most Important Constraints to Growth as Perceived by the Enterprise
2011

2013

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Shortage of
capital/credit

Current products have Too much competition


limited demand

Lack of modern
machinery

Inadequate premises

Access to credit is cited as the most serious problem for enterprises in both 2013 and
2011. However, we see a decline in proportion of firms experiencing this kind of challenge
from 45 per cent in 2011 to 30 per cent in 2013. Closely following is the problem of limited
demand for current products. While 19 per cent of SMEs in 2011 cited limited demand as a
serious challenge for growth, almost 27 per cent of firms did so in 2013. Another category
that has increased sharply between 2011 and 2013 is competition with 21 per cent of firms
in 2013 feeling under strong competitive pressure. More enterprises are constrained by the
lack of modern machinery in 2013 compared to 2011, while the inverse situation can be seen
with respect to production premises.

-138-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Given that the characteristics of business environment appear to have worsened from
the enterprise point of view, it is interesting to explore the factors driving dynamic changes
in the enterprise sector and its component parts. We now turn attention to enterprise
dynamics, focusing in particular on (i) employment growth and (ii) firm exit.

4.1. Employment Growth


Panel (a) in Table 4.1 documents the mean and median estimates of the number of fulltime regular employees in 2011and 2013 by firm size. Panel (b) documents the share of
firms that have experienced changes in the number of full-time employees between 2011
and 2013. The total number of full-time workers employed by the 1,988 SMEs declined
from 27,509 in 2011 to 23,589 in 2013, corresponding to a decrease in total employment of
7.4 per cent over the two-year period. These changes in employment are also reflected in the
decline in the average number of employees from 13.8 in 2011 to 11.9 in 2013, which is
observed for all firm sizes. However, small and medium enterprises were reducing the
number of full-time employees at a higher rate than micro enterprises. Sixty per cent of
small and 71 per cent of medium firms reduced their permanent workforce between 2011
and 2013.
Table 4.1: Mean Employment Statistics by Firm Size

All

All

Size

Micro
Small
Medium

(a)
Number of full-time regular employees
2011
2013
Mean
Median
Mean Median
13.8
5.0
11.9
5.0
(1,988)
(1,988)
3.8
3.0
3.7
3.0
(1,374)
(1,430)
20.2
17.0
20.0
17.0
(496)
(460)
101.2
85.0
92.1
80.0
(121)
(98)

(b)
Change from 2011 to 2013 (share of firms)
Employment change
Decrease
Constant
Increase
41.6
30.8
27.6
(827)
(613)
(548)
32.2
38.4
29.3
(442)
(527)
(402)
60.3
14.9
24.8
(299)
(74)
(123)
71.1
9.92
19.0
(86)
(12)
(23)

Note: Panel (a) shows the information for the balanced panel of 1,988 firms. Panel (b) shows the share of firms with
changing number of employees. Number of observations is in parentheses.

Table 4.1 shows that individual firm sizes have undergone important changes over
time. Another way to illustrate the dynamics of enterprises is to look at employment
transition matrices, a tool often used to evaluate economic mobility. Table 4.2 gives
employment transitions for micro, small and medium enterprises from 2011 to 2013. The
data indicate that overall firms tended to stay in their size category in the past two years.
Some 94 per cent of the micro enterprises with 1 to 9 employees in 2011 stayed in this
category in 2013. None of the micro enterprises transitioned to the medium category, but as
in 2011, micro enterprises which increased in size moved only to the small category. Around
72 per cent of small and medium enterprises stayed in the same size category, but around 25
per cent of these decreased in size, illustrating a tendency of these firms to move downwards

-139-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


in the size distribution over time. Only 2 per cent of small firms have switched to medium
category. Employment transition trend is similar to the trend observed in the period 20092011 (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012).
Table 4.2: Employment Transition Matrix

Micro 2011
Small 2011
Medium 2011
Total
Per cent

Micro
2013
1,297
(94.6)
130
(26.2)
3
(2.5)
1,430
(71.9)

Small
2013
74
(5.4)
355
(71.6)
31
(25.6)
460
(23.1)

Medium
2013
0
(0)
11
(2.2)
87
(71.9)
98
(4.9)

Total

Per cent

1,371
(100.0)
496
(100.0)
121
(100.0)
1,988
(100.0)

(69.0)
(24.9)
(6.1)
(100.0)

Note: Percentage in parenthesis.

Table 4.3 shows average annual employment growth rates (defined as the square root
of the number of full-time regular employees in 2013 divided by that in 2011) by province,
legal ownership form and firm size. First, we see that the mean employment growth rate was
on average negative between 2011 and 2013. While the average growth rate stalled in the
period 20092011, it declined by 1.29 per cent between 2011 and 2013. This is remarkably
different from earlier trends in the SME employment growth rates that were positive in the
period 20052009 (for details, see CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010; Rand et al., 2008; Rand &
Tarp, 2007). Second, the enterprises across most of the provinces have reversed the growth
in the number of full-time workers. This is unlike the 20092011 period, when only four
provinces experienced negative employment growth. Only the SMEs from three sampled
provinces Quang Nam, Lam Dong and Nghe An have on average expanded their workforce.
The results broken down by firm legal structure show a decline in employment growth
across all categories. While household enterprises and sole proprietorships experienced a
lower decline in employment growth than the sample average, other firm categories
experienced a higher than average decline in the 2011-2013 period. There is also an
indication of the inverse relationship between firm size and employment growth in the data.
Micro firms were the only firm category that witnessed an increase in the number of fulltime workers at a rate of 2.6 per cent, although the increase rate was smaller than in the
2005-2011 period. Just like in 2009-2011, small and medium enterprises saw a negative
growth in employment that ranges from 9 to13 per cent, respectively. Overall, these figures
suggest that the international crisis is affecting employment situation among the small and
medium enterprises in the 10 studied provinces. Compared with the results of the last report
(CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012) this suggests that employment effects of
international crisis have aggravated.

-140-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 4.3: Employment Growth by Province, Legal Structure and Size

All
Province

Legal

Size

All
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
HCMC
Long An
Household establishment
Private/sole
proprietorship
Partnership/ Collective/
Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company
Micro
Small
Medium

Observations

Mean

SD

Median

1,988
203
209
276
152
303
140
72
58
463
112
1,316

0.987
0.992
0.954
0.986
0.937
1.008
1.074
0.975
1.028
0.984
0.943
0.996

0.280
0.270
0.274
0.330
0.273
0.264
0.304
0.359
0.265
0.250
0.239
0.282

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.997
1.000
1.000
0.904
1.000
1.000
0.931
1.000

Percentage
change
-1.29
-0.76
-4.61
-1.42
-6.32
0.88
7.37
-2.49
2.82
-1.59
-5.73
-0.35

154

0.989

0.272

1.000

-1.05

47

0.956

0.321

0.968

-4.37

395
76
1,371
496
121

0.973
0.912
1.026
0.910
0.864

0.276
0.244
0.290
0.239
0.218

0.992
0.928
1.000
0.935
0.913

-2.70
-8.81
2.57
-8.97
-13.56

Note: The mean yearly growth rate (unweighted) is defined as (regular full-time employment 2013/regular fulltime employment 2011)^

Table 4.4 shows changes in the employment growth by sector. With the exception of
food, textile, rubber and chemical industry, all sectors have experienced a decline in
employment rates between 2011 and 2013. The largest decrease surpassing 6 per cent
was observed for leather manufacturing (ISIC 19), electronic machinery (ISIC 29-32) and
motor vehicles (ISIC 34). Compared to the period between 2009 and 2011, textile (ISIC 17),
rubber (ISIC 25) and chemical industry (ISIC 24) have transitioned from negative to positive
employment growth.

-141-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 4.4: Employment Growth by Sector

Sector
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29-32
34
36

All
Food products and beverages
Textiles
Wearing apparel etc.
Tanning and dressing leather
Wood and wood products
Paper and paper products
Publishing, printing etc.
Chemical products etc.
Rubber and plastic products
Non-metallic mineral
products
Basic metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery (incl. office +
electrical)
Vehicles etc.
Furniture etc.

Observations

Mean

SD

Median

1,988
616
81
93
36
203
49
50
32
102

0.987
1.003
1.025
0.964
0.937
0.985
0.984
0.970
1.042
1.037

0.280
0.256
0.329
0.289
0.301
0.325
0.206
0.231
0.316
0.265

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

Percentage
change
-1.3
0.3
2.5
-3.6
-6.3
-1.5
-1.6
-3.0
4.2
3.7

88

0.977

0.251

1.000

-2.3

29
356

0.930
0.973

0.297
0.268

0.925
1.000

-7.0
-2.7

57

0.938

0.256

0.975

-6.2

14
165

0.932
0.962

0.267
0.346

1.000
0.953

-6.8
-3.8

Note: We excluded sectors with under 10 observations.

Table 4.5 combines the information from the two previous tables by showing Ordinary
Least Squares (OLS) estimates where all the traditional determinants of enterprise dynamics
are included. The first column does not include sector controls, whereas the second column
includes 17 sector dummies in the specification. First, Table 4.5 shows that the inverse
relationship between employment growth and enterprise size holds in both estimations.
After controlling for location, legal structure and sector, we observe that micro firms have
experienced 17 and 23 per cent higher annual growth in full-time regular workers than small
and medium firms. Second, Quang Nam stands out in terms of employment generation.
Compared to Ho Chi Minh City, Quang Nam had 6 per cent higher annual employment
growth. Third, as in the previous survey, household firms contribute less to the employment
generation than other kinds of manufacturing enterprises.3 However, we see that the
traditional determinants explain only 7 to 8 per cent of the variation in employment growth
rates. In the following sections we therefore seek additional explanations for the observed
dynamics of the Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises.

Note however that firm size and legal structure are highly correlated and excluding size controls (not
reported) results in insignificant coefficient estimates on all legal structure indicators except the joint stock
companies.

-142-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 4.5: Employment Growth Determinants
Without sector controls

Firm size

Small
Medium
Location
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
Long An
Private/sole
Ownership
proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/
Cooperative
Limited liability
company
Joint stock company
Sector dummies included
Observation
R-squared

With sector controls

Coefficient

t-stats

Coefficient

t-stats

-0.166***
-0.231***
0.010
-0.057**
0.004
-0.059**
0.003
0.060**
-0.017
0.024
-0.073***

(-9.69)
(-8.43)
(0.45)
(-2.52)
(0.17)
(-2.32)
(0.18)
(2.13)
(-0.41)
(0.67)
(-2.84)

-0.171***
-0.237***
0.016
-0.051**
0.006
-0.045*
0.015
0.074**
-0.008
0.033
-0.067**

(-9.80)
(-8.53)
(0.70)
(-2.11)
(0.24)
(-1.72)
(0.71)
(2.51)
(-0.19)
(0.92)
(-2.53)

0.074***

(3.05)

0.075***

(3.09)

0.083*

(1.74)

0.069

(1.44)

0.085***

(4.02)

0.082***

(3.87)

0.070**

(2.05)

0.065*

(1.87)

No
1988
0.07

Yes
1988
0.08

Note: OLS - Dependent variable: Annual employee growth. Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicates
significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: Micro, HCMC, Household firm, Food processing
(ISIC 15).

4.2. Firm Turnover


Taking into consideration that dynamics are one of the key indicators of sector
competitiveness and growth potential, this section takes a closer look at the rate of creation of
new firms with respect to the rate of firm exits. Low productivity firms are less likely to
survive and prosper than their more efficient counterparts, raising the industry productivity in
aggregate (Foster et al., 2008). Similarly, the entry of new firms in innovative sectors makes a
contribution to aggregate productivity growth, while in mature industries productivity growth
is driven more by within-firm efficiency improvements and by the exit of obsolete firms
(OMahony & Vecchi, 2009). Figure 4.2 shows firm turnover, calculated as a share of firm
entries and exits in the total number of firms, by the type of sector in which they operate. It is
visible that, compared to other sectors, food processing (ISIC 15) has the highest turnover rate.
This finding follows the result from Table 4.4, which showed that the highest employment
growth is observed in food processing sector (ISIC 15). The second highest turnover rate is
observed in sectors for fabricated metal products (ISIC 28) and wood (ISIC 20), but these
sectors have not experienced high growth in the previous two-year period.

-143-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


As it will become apparent from the chapters that follow, micro-sized firms are the most
dynamic ones in terms of new enterprise formation and destruction. Figure 4.2 compares
therefore the entry and exit of micro firms with the total turnover rate per sector. Micro firms
follow the general pattern of the sample with somewhat lower than average rates of entry and
exit in apparel (ISIC 18), non-metallic mineral products (ISIC 26) and paper (ISIC 21) sectors.
The turnover rate of micro firms is higher than average in food processing (ISIC 15),
fabricated metal products (ISIC 28) and wood processing (ISIC 20) sector.
Figure 4.2: Firm Turnover by Sector
Firm entries plus exits as per cent of number of firms
All

30

Micro

40
35

25

30
20

25

15

20
15

10

10
5

0
15

28

20

36

18

26

17

21

29-32

25

19

22

27

34

24

Sector (ISIC four-digit code)

Note: ISIC 15: Food processing, ISIC 17: Textiles, ISIC 18: Apparel, ISIC 19: Leather, ISIC 20: Wood, ISIC 21:
Paper, ISIC 22: Publishing, ISIC 24: Chemical products, ISIC 25: Rubber and plastic products, ISIC 26: Nonmetallic mineral products, ISIC 27: Basic metals, ISI 28: Fabricated metal products, ISIC 29-32: Machinery, ISIC
34: Vehicles and ISIC 36: Furniture.

4.2.1. Firm Entry


Table 4.6 shows the prevalence of new entrants by location and firm size. New
entrants are defined as firms that have started operating within the last 2 years. Overall, the
data from the 2013 survey round show that only 25 firms have started their business since
2011. This amounts to one per cent of all surveyed firms. Slightly over one half of all new
entrants are household establishments and one third of new entrants are registered as
limited liability companies. There were no new entrants among partnership or collective
ownership forms.
Corresponding to the observation about household establishments, majority of new
entrants was in the micro firm category, constituting 80 per cent of all new entries (20
firms). There were five new entries among small firms. A slightly higher rate of new
entrants is observed in urban provinces 56 per cent of new entries relative to 44 per cent
coming from rural enterprises.

-144-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 4.6: New Entrants by Location, Legal Ownership and Size
Legal

Household establishment
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/ Collective/ Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company

Size

Micro
Small
Medium

Location

Urban
Rural

Total

No
1,540
(63.2)
197
(8.1)
55
(2.3)
538
(22.1)
107
(4.4)
1,744
(71.6)
561
(23.0)
132
(5.4)
1,048
(43.0)
1,389
(57.0)
2,437
(99.0)

Yes
14
(56.0)
1
(4.0)
0
(0.0)
8
(32.0)
2
(8.0)
20
(80.0)
5
(20.0)
0
(0.0)
14
(56.0)
11
(44.0)
25
(1.0)

Total
1,554
(63.1)
198
(8.0)
55
(2.2)
546
(22.2)
109
(4.4)
1,764
(71.7)
566
(23.0)
132
(5.4)
1,062
(43.1)
1,400
(56.9)
2,462
(100.0)

Note: percentages are in parentheses.

4.2.2. Firm Exit


In this subsection, we investigate how traditional determinants affect firm exit
probabilities. Table 4.7 shows exit rates by location, legal ownership and firm size
categories. Around 18 per cent of the 2,419 firms surveyed in 2011 have closed their
business by 2013. This translates to the yearly exit rate of 9.9 per cent, which is almost
identical to the exit rate observed between 2009 and 2011. As these exit percentages are not
based on confirmed exit data, relying on confirmed exits only reduces the annual exit rate to
9.3 per cent. This was also shown in Chapter 2. Above average exit probabilities were
observed in Ha Noi, Hai Phong, Khanh Hoa, Ha Tay, HCMC and Lam Dong. On the other
hand, firms in Quang Nam and Long An have shown very low exit rates. Compared to
20092011 period, the exit rates have increased in four provinces: Ha Noi, Ha Tay, Hai
Phong and Khanh Hoa.
Looking at legal status we see that household firms followed by joint stock companies
were less likely to exit than other legal ownership types in the observed period.
Disaggregation by firm size shows that medium firms were less likely to exit than their
micro and small counterparts. This is in accordance with earlier studies of Vietnamese nonfarm enterprises, showing that smaller firms have lower likelihood of survival (Hansen et
al., 2009; Vijverberg & Haughton, 2004).

-145-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Overall, only 6.6 per cent of total exits can be attributed to exporting firms. The lowest
part of Table 4.7 shows the difference in exit rates by exporter status. It can be seen that
among the firms who export (and who comprise only 6 per cent of the sample), 19 per cent
have exited. At the same, around 18 per cent of non-exporters have exited.
Table 4.7: Exit Rates by Location, Legal Ownership, Size and Export Status
All
Province

Legal

Size

Export

All
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
HCMC
Long An
Household establishment
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/ Collective/ Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company
Micro
Small
Medium
Exporter
Non-exporter

Obs.
2,419
268
251
340
200
345
155
94
76
568
122
1,571
193
65
498
92
1,660
614
145
145
2,264

Mean
0.178
0.243
0.167
0.188
0.240
0.122
0.097
0.234
0.237
0.185
0.082
0.162
0.202
0.277
0.207
0.174
0.174
0.192
0.165
0.193
0.176

SD
0.383
0.429
0.374
0.391
0.428
0.327
0.297
0.426
0.428
0.389
0.275
0.369
0.403
0.451
0.405
0.381
0.379
0.394
0.373
0.396
0.381

Note: Mean estimates of exit rates (unweighted).

Table 4.8 shows the rates of exit by the number of years since a firm started to operate.
For the ease of exposition, we have categorised firms in five groups where the first group
contains firms that have been operating for more than 31 years; the second group comprises
firms with 21 to 30 years of experience; the third group contains firms established 11 to 20
years ago; the fourth group comprises firms with six to 10 years of business experience and
the fifth group contains new entrants defined as firms operating for five years or less.
Sorting the firms in this way has allowed identifying unusually low exit rates among the new
entrants, whereby only 3.9 per cent of all SME exits can be attributed to these firms. This
finding is contradictory to the existing literature which maintains that young rms (defined
as firms operating one to five years) tend to have lower likelihood of survival (Hansen et al.,
2009; Ericson & Pakes, 1995; Jovanovic, 1982). Our findings, however, may serve as an
evidence of higher determination of new entrants to succeed in light of weak outside options
for firm owners.

-146-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


In our sample, the exit is highest among the firms that were established 11 to 20 years
ago. These firms account for nearly one half of all exits in our sample. Firms starting
business six to 10 years ago also appear to be vulnerable to exit. One quarter of exits took
place in this category. Further on, our sample shows high resilience to exit of older firms:
firms who were active for more than 31 years show sizeably lower exit rates. In brief, the
data show that the highest threat of exit among SMEs starts after doing business for six or
more years and that the threat of exit slowly declines after being in business for 21 years
or more. This result is in accordance with Vijverberg and Haughton (2004), who have
shown that non-farm household enterprises in Vietnam have a higher probability of
survival the older they are.
Table 4.8: Exit Rates by Years of Operation
Operating more than 31 years
Operating 21 30 years
Operating 11 20 years
Operating 6 10 years
Operating less than 5 years
Total

No
129
(6.5)
364
(18.3)
965
(48.5)
477
(24.0)
54
(2.7)
1,989
(82.2)

Yes
32
(7.4)
76
(17.6)
202
(46.8)
105
(24.3)
17
(3.9)
432
(17.8)

Total
161
(6.7)
440
(18.2)
1,167
(48.2)
582
(24.0)
71
(2.9)
2,421
(100.0)

Note: percentages in parentheses

Table 4.9 shows a variation in exit rates by sector. Not considering sectors with fewer
than 10 observations, firms in paper processing (ISIC 21) have a very high exit occurrence,
followed by firms in mineral (ISIC 27), leather (ISIC 19), apparel (ISIC 18), and textile
(ISIC 17) industries. Firms producing rubber and plastic products (ISIC 25) have been by far
least likely to exit. Apart from measuring the number of firms that have ceased to operate,
firm turnover can be measured by sector switching. Especially in developing countries,
firms have been shown to switch the sector in which they produce as a part of their survival
strategy (Newman et al., 2013). Overall, our sample shows that the share of switching
between different sectors was around 15 per cent in the past two years.
As Table 4.10 illustrates, there are sizeable differences between sectors in our sample.
The sectors to which the most firms switch into were machinery (ISIC 29-32), furniture
(ISIC 36) and basic metals (ISIC 27). The sectors with least switching into were food
processing (ISIC 15), fabricated metal products (ISIC 28) and publishing (ISIC 22).
Newman, Rand and Tarp (2013) have found that firms who switch to production in a
different sector tend to be less productive and smaller, but more labour-intensive than their
counterparts in the sector which they are leaving.

-147-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 4.9: Exit Rates by Sector
All
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29-32
34
35
36
37

Food products and beverages


Textiles
Wearing apparel etc.
Tanning and dressing leather
Wood and wood products
Paper and paper products
Publishing, printing etc.
Refined petroleum etc.
Chemical products etc.
Rubber and plastic products
Non-metallic mineral products
Basic metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery (incl. office + electrical)
Vehicles etc.
Transport equipment
Furniture etc.
Recycling

Obs
2,419
734
104
121
47
248
67
59
7
39
114
114
35
431
74
17
8
194
6

Mean
0.178
0.161
0.221
0.231
0.234
0.181
0.269
0.152
0.143
0.179
0.105
0.228
0.171
0.174
0.230
0.176
0.25
0.149
0.167

SD
0.383
0.368
0.417
0.423
0.428
0.386
0.447
0.363
0.378
0.389
0.308
0.421
0.382
0.379
0.423
0.393
0.463
0.357
0.408

Note: Mean estimates of exit probability (unweighted).

Table 4.10: Sector Switching between 2011 and 2013

Sector
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29-32
34
36

All
Food products and beverages
Textiles
Wearing apparel etc.
Tanning and dressing leather
Wood and wood products
Paper and paper products
Publishing, printing etc.
Chemical products etc.
Rubber and plastic products
Non-metallic mineral products
Basic metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery (incl. office + electrical)
Vehicles etc.
Furniture etc.

Note: We excluded sectors with under 15 observations.

-148-

Observations

Per cent

288

14.5

22
24
25
12
94
24
10
13
31
29
25
84
26
10
103

1.8
14.5
14.0
16.7
23.3
23.5
10.6
20.0
15.3
16.8
51.0
11.7
24.5
41.7
31.2

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


These results are explored further in Table 4.11 that shows the results of a probit
estimation for determining exit probabilities in the Vietnamese manufacturing industries
using the correlates of location, ownership form, sector and size.
With respect to exit determinants, we find the expected negative relationship between firm
size and probability of exit. Small and medium firms are 3 to 6per cent less likely to exit than
their micro counterparts. This corresponds well with the results obtained in most of the studies
on rm dynamics. The eect is not well determined in the first column for small firms, but it
becomes significantly determined when sector dummies are introduced in the second column.
Table 4.11: Exit Determinants
Exit (without sector)
Marginal
effects
Firm Size

Small
Medium
Location
Ha Noi
PhuTho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
KhanhHoa
Lam Dong
Long An
Ownership Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company
Sector dummies included
Observation
Pseudo R-squared

z-stat

-0.030
(-1.49)
-0.060**
(-2.03)
0.047
(1.57)
-0.012
(-0.40)
0.013
(0.47)
0.050
(1.47)
-0.058**
(-2.52)
-0.084*** (-3.13)
0.050
(1.10)
0.054
(1.06)
-0.100*** (-3.67)
0.044
(1.30)
0.109*
(1.80)
0.051*
(1.96)
0.027
(0.54)
No
2,419
0.02

Exit (with sector)


Marginal
effects

z-stat

-0.035*
-0.072**
0.057*
-0.019
0.001
0.048
-0.063***
-0.086***
0.047
0.054
-0.102***
0.047
0.118*
0.050*
0.022

(-1.76)
(-2.57)
(1.83)
(-0.65)
(0.03)
(1.39)
(-2.70)
(-3.23)
(1.02)
(1.05)
(-3.83)
(1.39)
(1.89)
(1.90)
(0.45)

Yes
2,419
0.03

Note: Probit, marginal effects. Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate significance at a 10%, 5% and 1%
level, respectively. Base: HCMC, Household firm, Food processing (ISIC 15).

Then, looking at other rm characteristics, we nd location to be a signicant


determinant of rm exit. The highest exit probability is found in Ha Noi, conceivably due to
high competitive pressures. Higher competition in urban areas was found in previous studies
on SMEs in Vietnam (Hansen et al., 2009). Other areas show similar exit probabilities to
HCMC except Nghe An, Quang Nam and Long An, where exit probabilities are
significantly lower. Finally, ownership structure appears to be an important determinant of
rm exit. Partnerships and limited liability firms are more likely to exit than household
enterprises when size differences are taken into account. As compared to the base sector
(food processing), exits are more likely in the production of non-metallic mineral products
(ISIC 26) and less likely in rubber processing (ISIC 25), when controlling for size, location

-149-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


and legal structure (not reported). However, note that these traditional determinants explain
only between two and three per cent of the variation in exit probabilities.
Data from the 2013 survey show that 356 SMEs temporarily closed their business for
up to a year between 2011 and 2013. This number represents a slight increase (5 per cent)
compared to 2011 when 339 firms reported temporary closures in the previous two-year
period. It was observed in 2011 that only 17 firms closed their business temporarily since
2009 as a strategy to cope with the economic crisis (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER,
2012). However, 124 firms were compelled to do so between 2011 and 2013. Enterprises
closed down their businesses in the short term for other reasons apart from global financial
crisis and Figure 4.3 shows the details.
Figure 4.3: Reasons for Temporary Closure (per cent)
40

Lack of demand/orders

30
15

Normal part of business cycle

24
26

Other

23
8
7

Too much competition


3

Production costs too high

Difficulties in getting raw


materials

2
5
3
3

Low quality products


Shortage of qualified labour

1
2

Product became un-modern

1
1

2013

10

20

30

40

2011

50

The main reason for temporary closure in the period 2011-2013 was a lack of demand.
This reason became more important in 2013 for additional 10 per cent of enterprises
compared to the period 2009-2011. Lack of demand was also the main reason for
temporarily closing down the business in the period 2007-2009 (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010).
In Section 10, we show that a large share of enterprises has accumulated goods which are
difficult to sell, corroborating the lagging responsiveness to real market demand. Around
one quarter of SMEs considered short-term closures as a normal part of business cycle in the
previous survey round, but this share dropped to 15 per cent in the 2013 data. Competitive
pressure and resource limitations have caused much lower fraction of enterprises to
temporarily close down. It is noteworthy here that around a quarter of enterprises stopped
operating for a period of time for undisclosed reasons (see category Other).
Firms that experienced temporary closures were mainly micro and small, accounting
for 83 and 16 per cent of short-term closures, respectively. Table 4.12 shows that household
firms were most likely to temporarily close their business between 2011 and 2013. The
second highest rate of short-term closures was observed in case of limited liability
companies, while joint stock companies had the lowest rate of temporary closures.

-150-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 4.12: Temporary Closure by Legal Structure
Legal status
Household establishment
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company
Total

No
1,042
(62.8)
125
(7.5)
45
(2.7)
367
(22.1)
81
(4.9)
1,660
(100.0)

Temporary closure
Yes
Total
262
1,304
(73.6)
(64.7)
30
155
(8.4)
(7.7)
6
51
(1.7)
(2.5)
55
422
(15.5)
(20.9)
3
84
(0.8)
(4.2)
356
2,016
(100.0)
(100.0)

Note: percentages in parentheses

Temporarily closed firms also showed higher chances of exit, as Table 4.13 illustrates.
This especially holds for micro and small firms that comprise 70 and 27 per cent of all exits
after temporary closures. Medium firms were least likely to temporarily close and stop
operating, illustrating the clear advantage of size with respect to firm survival in a
competitive business environment. In terms of legal structure, we observe that householdowned enterprises show the highest tendency to exit after closing the business for a while.
Limited liability companies are the second most frequent enterprise type to exit after
temporary closure. Partnerships and other forms of collective ownership have shown the
lowest tendency to exit conditional on being temporarily closed. The behaviour of firms also
differs depending on location. Firms located in urban areas were less compelled to exit after
being closed for a while. Some 43 per cent of exits after temporary closure happened among
urban firms, while the rate for rural firms amounted to 57 per cent.
Firms that experienced temporary closures but were operating during the 2013 survey
round have kept the employment growth similar to their counterparts that kept their business
going throughout the international crisis. Firms temporarily closed but surviving
experienced two per cent higher employment growth between 2011 and 2013 compared to
firms operating throughout the crisis (not reported).

-151-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 4.13: Temporary Closure in 2011 and Exit in 2013
Temporarily closed in 2011
All firms
Firm size

Micro (<10)
Small (10-49)
Medium (50-300)

Legal structure Household establishment


Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company
Location

Rural
Urban

Exit 2013
No
Yes
258
81
(15.7)
(23.6)
199
57
(77.1)
(70.4)
52
22
(20.2)
(27.2)
7
2
(2.7)
(2.5)
193
57
(74.8)
(70.4)
19
6
(7.4)
(7.4)
11
2
(4.3)
(2.5)
32
13
(12.4)
(16.1)
3
3
(1.2)
(3.7)
176
46
(68.2)
(56.8)
82
35
(31.8)
(43.2)

Total
339
(17.1)
256
(75.5)
74
(21.8)
9
(2.7)
250
(73.8)
25
(7.4)
13
(3.8)
45
(13.3)
6
(1.8)
222
(65.5)
117
(34.5)

Note: percentages in parentheses

We now explore whether the firms who temporarily closed their business were
compelled to change their product portfolio. We measure this change at the sector level
(ISIC two digit code). Table 4.14 shows that firms who have closed their business for some
time frequently switch to production in a different sector. The rate of sector switching for
these firms is by around three percentage points higher than the sample average (17.6 per
cent for temporarily closed firms compared to 14.5 per cent on average).
Firms who temporarily closed their business were more compelled to change the sector
in which they operate compared to firms who have not experienced temporary closures.
Some 19 per cent of firms switched the sector after being closed for a while, while 17 per
cent of firms who were not temporary closed changed the sector as well. In addition, only
two firms who have changed sector have closed their firm since 2011.
Table 4.14: Temporary Closure and Sector Change
Temporarily closed in 2011
No
Yes
Total

Sector switch
No
Yes
1,405
294
(82.7)
(17.3)
232
56
(80.6)
(19.4)
1,637
350
(82.4)
(17.6)

Note: percentages in parentheses

-152-

Total
1,699
(100.0)
288
(100.0)
1,987
(100.0)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


5. BUREAUCRACY, INFORMALITY AND INFORMAL PAYMENTS
No discussion of private sector development and business environment in developing
countries can take place without looking at business informality, regulation, taxation and
corruption. High costs of formal sector entry, regulatory compliance and punitive taxes can
induce enterprises to start operating informally; foregoing legal recognition in order to reduce
operating costs. The ability of enterprises to reduce or avoid these costs also relates to the
corruptibility of public officials. Corruption may also exist due to predatory public officials
working to extract private rents for fictitious infractions or questionable interpretations of the
rules. The issues of informality, bureaucracy, taxation and corruption have potentially differing
impacts on heterogeneous enterprises, in particular in terms of enterprise legal structure.

5.1. Informality, Growth and Exit


Defining informality is a problem in itself. In this chapter we consider one definition
of formality whereby firms with an Enterprise Code Number (ECN)or firms with both a
Business Registration Certificate (BRC) and a tax code are labelled as formal. As such we
allow for the possibility that a firm operates formally even though it only employs informal
workers (workers without a written contract). Table 5.1 documents the summary statistics of
our definition in both 2011 and 2013.
Table 5.1: Formality Summary Statistics
2011
Formal (Total)
Formal (Balanced)

Per cent
72.7
71.9

2013
Number
1,759
1,430

Per cent
71.4
72.2

Number
1,757
1,453

Note: Formal definition: Firm has an ECN or a BRC and a tax code.

According to our definition, some 71 per cent of surveyed enterprises were formal in 2013.
This is not widely different from the situation in 2011. With the exception of two privately owned
entities and one joint stock company, all unregistered firms are household enterprises.
Table 5.2 shows the formality dynamics using a traditional transition matrix. First, 9.8
per cent of the informal firms in 2011 had obtained an official license by 2013. Moreover,
only 0.2 per cent of formal firms registered in 2011 no longer had a formal license in 2013.
These figures show substantial improvements in the registration procedures (and knowledge
hereof) compared to the last survey.
Table 5.2: Formality Transition Matrix

Informal 2011
Formal 2011
Total
Per cent

Informal 2013
551
(90.2)
2
(0.2)
553
(27.8)

ECN or BRC + Tax code


Formal 2013
Total
60
611
(9.8)
(100.0)
1,375
1,377
(99.8)
(100.0)
1,435
1,988
(72.2)
(100.0)

Note: Percentage in parenthesis.

-153-

Per cent
(30.7)
(69.3)
(100.0)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


We now examine how formality is associated with firm growth and exit.4 Table 5.3
shows the results, with our measure of formality included as explanatory variable. First, we
find a positive and significant coefficient estimate in the growth equation, suggesting that
becoming formal is associated with higher employment growth rates, in accordance with
results obtained in Rand and Torm (2012). Also, a statistically significant positive
relationship between firm exit and formal firm registration is found in probit estimations
(columns 3 and 4). This is in contrast to previous surveys that found no significant
relationship between formality and firm exit(CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012).
Table 5.3: Firm Dynamics and Formality
Firm Growth

Firm Size

Registration

log (number of
employees)
Formal = 1

Location dummies included


Sector dummies included
Observation
Pseudo R-squared

(1)
-0.082***

(2)
-0.092***

(-13.22)
0.072***
(4.45)
No
No
1,988
0.09

(-13.12)
0.062***
(3.40)
Yes
Yes
1,988
0.12

Firm Exit
(3)
(4)
-0.010
0.027***
(-1.35)
(-3.24)
0.050***
0.049**
(2.77)
(2.43)
No
Yes
No
Yes
2,419
2,419
0.00
0.03

Note: OLS and probit, marginal effects.t-statistics in parenthesis. Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate
significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: Micro, HCMC, Food processing (ISIC 15).

5.2. Taxes and Informal Costs


According to the World Banks Doing Business survey (World Bank & IFC, 2013),
the Investment Climate Assessment survey (World Bank, 2011) and the Vietnamese
Provincial Competitiveness Index (Malesky, 2013), the ease of doing business in Vietnam
significantly improved over the past years. However, concerns remain regarding informal
charges facing firms as well as the administrative burden in paying taxes. This final subsection follows up on last surveys overview of the burden of taxes and informal payments
facing Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises, to see if improvements have occurred.
Table 5.4 looks at the evolution in the net profits share of gross profits to get an
indication of the amount of taxes paid from 2011 to 2013.From the table we can conclude
that household enterprises do not contribute fully to the tax base. The net to gross profit
share raised from 92 per cent in 2011 to 93 per cent in 2013 for household enterprises. A
slight increase in the share of household enterprises that paid zero taxes (net to gross profit
share equal to one) was also observed an increase from 11 per cent in 2011 to 11.8 per cent
in 2013. Most of the non-tax paying firms are informal household enterprises as in 2011.

A more detailed analysis using the 2007 and 2009 data on the effects of informality (and the change from

informal to formal) can be found in Rand and Torm (2012).

-154-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 5.4: Net-to-Gross Profit Share
Net Profits/Gross
Profits
Share
Total
Household establishment
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company

2011
0.841
0.921
0.736
0.695
0.669
0.624

2013
0.856
0.933
0.741
0.687
0.702
0.681

Share paying zero


taxes
2011
0.074
0.110
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

2013
0.080
0.118
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.000

Informality and taxation are potentially closely related to bribery and corruption, and
they are prominent components of the business environment in a country. We therefore
focus on informal payments that, from the enterprises point of view, are treated as a regular
component of operating costs. Informal payments may be offered in exchange for a given
service delivered by a government official. We therefore examine this issue in the form of
the following questions: (i) how many enterprises provide informal payments, (ii) why are
these payments made and (iii) how have these payments changed over time? Table 5.5
shows that 45 per cent of enterprises made informal payments in 2011, while 38 per cent of
surveyed enterprises did so in 2011. Comparing this finding with previous survey rounds,
we conclude that the number of enterprises paying bribes has been increasing since 2007. It
is mostly formal firms that pay bribes. This is also confirmed in the more detailed study by
Rand and Tarp (2012) showing that the bribes to hide hypothesis is not confirmed using
Vietnamese data. The balanced panel shows the same trends as the overall sample,
indicating a high pressure for delivering informal payments in the Vietnamese business
environment.
Table 5.5: How Many Enterprises Pay Bribes?
All
Firms paying bribes
Formal
Informal

2011
926
(38.3)
812
(47.8)
114
(15.8)

2013
1,108
(45.0)
948
(54.0)
160
(22.7)

Balanced
2011
2013
742
891
(37.3)
(44.8)
640
771
(46.5)
(53.7)
102
120
(16.9)
(21.7)

Note: Percentage in parenthesis.

Table 5.6 shows the bribe transition matrix, which documents that 35.8 per cent of the
firms not paying bribes in 2011 paid an informal fee in 2013. Similarly, 40 per cent of the
firms paying an informal fee in 2011 did not provide a bribe in 2013. Only 445 out of 1988
firms paid a bribe both in 2011 and 2013, marking a five percentage point increase in the
share of firms that pay bribes.

-155-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 5.6: Temporal Changes in Paying Bribes
No bribe 2011
Yes bribe 2011
Total
Per cent

No bribe 2013
800
(64.2)
297
(40.0)
1,097
(55.2)

Yes bribe 2013


446
(35.8)
445
(60.0)
891
(44.8)

Total
1,246
(100.0)
742
(100.0)
1988
(100.0)

Per cent
(62.7)
(37.3)
(100.0)

Note: Percentage in parenthesis.

Figure 5.1 shows that 30 per cent of firms made informal payments to deal with tax
collectors in 2011. This number declined to 19 per cent in 2013. Around 29 per cent pay
informally to become connected to public services (up from 26 per cent in 2011).
Figure 5.1: What is the Bribe Payment Used For?
40
35

2013

2011

30
Percent

25
20
15
10
5
0
To get
To get licenses To deal with tax
To gain
connected to
and permits
and tax
government
public services
collectors
contracts

To deal with
customs

Other

Turning to the question of which manufacturing enterprises pay bribes, Table 5.7 lists
the results obtained from running a pooled probit using the usual determinants previously
described and both indictor variables for formal enterprise registration. Columns 1 and 2 use
the full dataset, whereas columns 3 and 4 report results for the balanced panel. Column 5
reports the fixed effects results (linear probability model). The results show that larger
enterprises have 11-12 per cent higher probability of paying bribes than their micro
counterparts. Then, being a registered enterprise is positively and significantly correlated
with paying bribes, confirming the results in Rand and Tarp (2012). Registered firms are
around 20 per cent more likely to be bribe payers than their informal counterparts. Fixed
effect estimates show somewhat smaller size of the effect, but with consistent direction of
the relationship between variables. Firms in the South have a slightly lower tendency to
bribe than firms with similar characteristics in the North (not reported in the table).

-156-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 5.7: Bribe Determinants: The Usual Suspects

Firm Size ln (number of


employees)
Registration (Registered = 1)
Location dummies
Sector dummies
Observation

All
(1)
0.115***

All
(2)
0.116***

Balanced
(3)
0.125***

Balanced
(4)
0.126***

FE
(5)
0.082***

(14.83)
0.200***
(11.59)
No
No

(14.21)
0.225***
(11.84)
Yes
Yes

(14.47)
0.184***
(9.57)
No
No

(13.94)
0.203***
(9.61)
Yes
Yes

(3.21)
0.124
(1.60)
..
..

4,880

4,880

3,976

3,976

3,976
(1,988)

0.11

0.12

0.11

0.12

..

Pseudo R-squared

Note: Pooled probit + Fixed effects (LPM). t-statistics in parenthesis. Robust standard errors. *, ** and ***
indicate significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: HCMC, Food processing (ISIC 15).

Finally, Table 5.8 looks at the association between bribes and chosen indicators of firm
dynamics: employment growth and firm exit. It is visible from the results that firms paying
bribes are not expanding their workforce more than non-paying firms. Also, bribe-paying
firms are around 3 per cent more likely to discontinue their operations.
Table 5.8: Informal Payments and Firm Dynamics
Employment growth
t-stat
Coef

Coef
Firm size (log
number of
employees)
Registered
(Yes=1)
Bribe paying
firm (Yes=1)
Urban
(Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Sector
dummies
Observation
Pseudo
R-squared

Exit
t-stat

Coef

t-stat

Coef

t-stat

-0.082***

(-13.08)

-0.090***

(-13.30)

-0.012

(-1.54)

-0.024***

(-2.87)

0.072***

(4.43)

0.061***

(3.36)

0.044**

(2.37)

0.045**

(2.21)

-0.004

(-0.34)

-0.006

(-0.43)

0.028

(1.62)

0.031*

(1.83)

0.017

(1.14)

0.069***

(3.71)

0.013

(0.97)

-0.043**

(-2.57)

No

Yes

No

Yes

1,988

1,988

2,419

2,419

0.09

0.11

0.00

0.02

Note: OLS and Probit. Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level,
respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).

-157-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


6. INVESTMENT AND ACCESS TO FINANCE
Constraints in credit markets have often been singled out as one of the most serious
obstacles for future growth of SMEs in Vietnam. This section therefore considers the
investment behaviour of surveyed firms and both formal and informal aspects of access to
credit in Vietnam. In order to examine investment dynamics and credit constraint
development over time much of the analysis is performed using the balanced panel dataset
from years 2011 and 2013.

6.1. Investments
Table 6.1 shows the percentage of enterprises that made investments since the last
survey, depending on firm size, legal structure and location. In 2011, 56 per cent of the
2,416 enterprises made new investments, while the share of firms making new investment
equalled 47 per cent in 2013. The tendency to make new investments increases by enterprise
size. While around 50% of micro enterprises made investments in 2011, ten per cent fewer
of them did so in 2013. Non-household enterprises made more investments than their
household counterparts in both years. Lastly, firms located in rural and Northern provinces
invested more frequently than enterprises in urban and southern areas. While low interest
rates can motivate higher investment rates, low demand can countervail the positive effect of
affordable credit. This may explain the lower investment rates in 2013 compared to 2011.
Table 6.1: New Investments
2011
All
Micro
Small
Medium
Household firm
Non-household firm
Urban
Rural
South
North

Obs.
2,416
1,658
613
145
1,569
847
1,035
1,381
1,014
1,402

2013
Share
0.562
0.498
0.674
0.821
0.505
0.666
0.529
0.587
0.454
0.640

Obs.
2,461
1,763
566
132
1,553
908
1,062
1,399
1,059
1,402

Share
0.470
0.395
0.629
0.788
0.405
0.582
0.373
0.544
0.410
0.516

Table 6.2 looks at the investment persistence among Vietnamese SMEs. Around 60
per cent of enterprises made new investments in both 2011 and 2013. The numerical
difference in the number of firms not investing and the firms that invested both in 2011 and
2013 is not large: while 587 firms have not invested in the past four years, 675 firms made
repeated investments. Around 30 per cent of the firms not investing in 2011 made
investments in 2013, marking a 10 per cent decline compared to the previous report (CIEM,
DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012). This implies that the majority of SMEs are investing
over a five-year time horizon.

-158-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 6.2: Investment Persistence (Investment Transition Matrix)

No 2011
Yes 2011
Total
Per cent

Investment Transition
No 2013
Yes 2013
587
251
(70.1)
(29.9)
472
675
(41.2)
(58.8)
1,059
926
(53.4)
(46.6)

Total
838
(100.0)
1,147
(100.0)
1,985
(100.0)

Per cent
(42.2)
(57.8)
(100.0)

Note: Three observations missing in 2011 due to misreporting.

Table 6.3 looks at the association between the probability to invest and the group of
traditional control variables. It is visible that larger firms have a higher probability of making
new investments than their smaller counterparts when the characteristics of legal structure,
location and sector are controlled for. The estimate is reduced to one-third of the size when the
unobserved firm characteristics are controlled for, but it remains statistically significant. The
table also shows that household firms are less likely to make new investments than other legal
forms of enterprises. Urban firms and firms located in southern provinces tend to have a
significantly lower probability of investing than comparable northern and rural firms. This
confirms the initial observation made in Table 6.1. Throughout the table, the time dummy is
negative and well-determined independent of sample (full or balanced) or estimator choice
(pooled probit or fixed effects linear probability model), confirming the general reduction in
the share of firms making new investments in 2013 as compared to 2011.
Table 6.3: Investment Characteristics
All
Firm size (log number
of employees)
Household firm (Yes=1)
Urban (Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Year dummy
Sector dummies
Observation
Pseudo R-squared

Balanced
Coef
t-stat

Coef

t-stat

0.148***

(15.11)

0.156***

-0.040*
-0.210***
-0.157***
-0.089***

(-1.85)
(-12.02)
(-9.99)
(-5.96)

-0.033
(-1.38)
-0.225*** (-11.50)
-0.158***
(-9.01)
-0.112***
(-6.77)
Yes
3,973
0.12

Yes
4,877
0.11

(14.26)

FE
Coef

t-stat

0.050**

(2.04)

-0.105*** (-7.74)
Yes
3,973
0.05

Note: Probit + Fixed Effects (Linear Probability Model). Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate
significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).

Figure 6.1 shows the main sources of finance for new investments. The average
amount of the investment financed by retained earnings decreased from 2011 to 2013. The
2011 survey data reveal that retained earnings were the main source of finance for 46 per
cent of new investments in the 2009-2011 period. In contrast, just around 34 per cent of new
investments were financed by own capital during the past two years. At the same time, the
share of investments financed using formal credit increased from 45 to 52 per cent. This

-159-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


could be a consequence of slightly lower interest rates in formal borrowing and a decrease of
accumulated firm resources after several years of economic crisis. Indeed, the data show a
decrease in the average monthly interest rate for formal loans from 1.7 per cent in 2011 to 1.2
per cent in 2013. Also, there was a slight decline in the real value of total assets from 1.7
billion VND in 2009 to 1.1 billion VND in 2012 (values are normalised using VND 1994
values as a base). The share of investments financed through informal sources (for example,
friends and family without interest payments) also increased from 8 per cent in 2011 to 14 per
cent in 2013. While the importance of informal financing for new investment was declining
between 2009 and 2011, the latest data suggest otherwise. Overall, informal financing does
not play a prominent part of the aggregate external financing requirements of SMEs.
Figure 6.1: How Was the Investment Financed?
2011

2013

60
50
Percent

40
30
20
10
0
Own capital
Bank loan or other
formal financing

Informal loans
Other

Table 6.4 considers the full 2013 sample of investors, giving a small increase in the
average share of investments financed by retained earnings as compared to the balanced
panel in Figure 6.1.
Table 6.4: Investment Financing, by Firm Size and Location

All
Micro
Small
Medium
Household firm
Non-household firm
Urban
Rural
South
North

Retained Earnings
Per cent
34.5
38.8
28.3
26.7
41.0
26.8
30.8
36.4
31.9
36.1

Formal loans
Per cent
51.8
44.5
61.3
69.0
43.5
61.8
50.3
52.6
53.8
50.7

Informal loans
Per cent
13.7
16.7
10.4
4.3
15.5
11.4
18.9
11.0
14.3
13.2

Note: Full 2013 sample. 1,156 firm observations. Formal financial loans are calculated as the residual.

-160-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


The disaggregated data show that micro firms are more likely to finance investments
using retained earnings or informal financing than larger enterprises, which much more than
other firm categories rely on formal loan sources. Household-owned firms show the same
pattern as micro firms, while non-household firms follow the practice of larger enterprises
with respect to loan sourcing. Firms located in rural areas and in the south tend to use formal
borrowing to finance investments.
Figure 6.2 shows where the investments were made using the value share of investment
in the overall investment portfolio of the enterprise. All numbers are for the balanced sample,
but the results do not change considerably when the whole sample period for both 2011 and
2013 is considered (not reported). The data show that the investments in land decreased by
one per cent between 2011 and 2013. In 2013, however, the share of investments in buildings,
equipment and machinery increased in value compared to 2011. New investments in
equipment and machinery rose from nine to 11 per cent, while new investments in buildings
rose from 26 per cent in 2011 to 28 per cent in 2013. The category other consists of
investment in research and development, human capital upgrading, patent, other enterprises
and other categories. Around 60 per cent of the firms made investments in this category,
however, only 1 per cent of the enterprises invested in research and development, human
capital upgrading, patent and other enterprises, leaving 59 per cent unexplained.
Figure 6.2: Investment Details 2011-13 (per cent)
2011

2013

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Land

Equipment and
machinery

Buildings

Other

Figure 6.3 compares the investment purpose of enterprises in 2011 and 2013.
Primarily, investments were made in order to increase production capacity and we can
observe a small increase from 28 per cent in 2011 to 63 per cent in 2013. The second most
important investment purpose was to replace old equipment, also with a rising share in the
past two years. The third largest investment purpose was to increase productivity. More
investments were made in 2013 with the purpose of producing new output than in 2011,
while improvements in quality, safety and environmental requirements remain minor issues
to surveyed enterprises.

-161-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 6.3: Investment Purpose 2011-2003 (per cent)
2011

2013

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Add to capacity

Replace old
equipment

Improve
productivity

Improve quality Produce a new


of output
output

Safety

Environmental
requirements

Other

The investment profile of Vietnamese SMEs cannot be fully understood without the
information about current market conditions, especially the credit market and the interest
rate level. Thus, we look at the borrowing behaviour of firms in the following section.

6.2. Credit
As reported in previous SME sector analyses (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER,
2012; CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010; Rand et al., 2008), the debt share of Vietnamese
enterprises is very low; the main reason possibly coming from liquidity constraints and
restrictions in the access to finance (Rand, 2007). However, the low debt to asset share of
Vietnamese SMEs is consistent with the result that a large part of investments are financed
through retained earnings. The number of enterprises that applied for formal bank loans or
other forms of credit during the last two years is shown in Table 6.5 for both the full and the
balanced sample. In 2013, some 26 per cent (29 per cent in 2011) applied for a formal loan,
and 24 per cent (28 per cent in 2011) had problems getting the loan. These results are
independent of whether we focus on the full or the balanced sample.
Table 6.5: Access to Credit
2013 Full sample
Enterprise applied for formal loan

Problems getting loan

2013 Balanced sample

Yes

No

Yes

No

(638)
25.9

(1,823)
74.1

(510)
25.7

(1,478)
74.3

Yes

No

Yes

No

(152)
23.9

(484)
76.1

(119)
23.4

(389)
76.6

Note: Full and balanced 2013 sample. Numbers in parenthesis are number of observations.

-162-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Several enterprises that did not apply for formal credit may still be credit constrained.
Figure 6.4 reports why these enterprises did not apply for loans. While 15 per cent of
surveyed enterprises stated that the loan interest rate is too high, 10 per cent find the loan
application process too difficult and 17 per cent do not want to incur debt. Around 2 per cent
of enterprises were already heavily indebted or is not in possession of adequate loan
collateral. Finally, 50 per cent of the enterprises did not apply for formal loan because they
felt that they did not need one. These firms cannot be classified as credit constrained.
Therefore, out of the non-applicant group (1,823 firms) around one half may potentially be
classified as constrained. Classifying this group as credit constrained means that 906
enterprises have limited access to credit, corresponding to 37 per cent of the sample.
Adding rationed firms (the 152 firms having problems obtaining loans) means that 43 per
cent of firms are credit rationed or constrained. This number has increased slightly since
the survey in 2011, when the share of credit rationed or constrained enterprises amounted
to 39 per cent.
Figure 6.4: Why Enterprises Do Not Apply for Loans?
2011

2013

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inadequate
collateral

Dont want to
incur debt

Process too
difficult

Didnt need
one

Interest rate
too high

Already
heavily
indebted

Other

Table 6.6 shows access to credit for different groups of enterprises. Compared to 2011,
the average credit access has declined by around 4 percentage points. Access to credit has
worsened for micro and small, but it has increased for medium enterprises. Household firms
have twice as low credit access as non-household firm categories combined and the rate of
decline in credit access is higher for household firms. Similar trend appears for the urbanrural distinction of firms, where urban firms clearly have dominant position in accessing
credit. The gap in credit access between firms in the southern and the northern provinces has
started to narrow, but a dominance of firms in the north is still present.

-163-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 6.6: Credit Access by Enterprise Category
2011
All
Micro
Small
Medium
Household firm
Non-household
firm
Urban
Rural
South
North

2013

Obs.
2,418
1,660
613
145
1,570

%
29.4
21.7
42.6
62.1
23.1

Obs.
2,461
1,763
566
132
1,553

%
25.9
18.4
40.5
63.6
18.3

848
1,036
1,382
1,015
1,402

41.2
23.7
33.7
24.0
33.3

908
1,062
1,399
1,059
1,402

39.0
18.5
31.6
23.2
28.0

Next, we ask about the characteristics of enterprises that are credit constrained. Table
6.7 shows the share of credit-constrained enterprises in rural and urban provinces depending
on legal status. More credit constrained household enterprises are located in rural areas (65
per cent). With the exception of household enterprises, enterprises located in urban areas are
more likely to be credit constrained than their counterparts in rural areas. The gap between
household and non-household enterprises in terms of credit constraints is getting smaller in
2013, while in 2011 the non-household firms reported being more credit constrained in
previous years (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010).
Table 6.7: Which Type of Enterprises is Credit Constrained?
Legal status
Households
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company

Observations
(1,553)
(198)
(55)
(546)
(109)

Credit constrained
Rural
Urban
Total
65.1
34.9
41.7
35.7
64.3
42.4
23.1
76.9
47.3
28.0
72.0
45.8
22.0
78.0
45.9

Some of the explanations for not getting the loan are presented in Figure 6.5, showing
that the most serious obstacle in getting the loan were difficulties in obtaining the bank
clearance. This holds for 40% of the enterprises that experienced problems in loan access.
Around one third of enterprises were affected by the lack of available collateral for the loan.
The administrative and procedural difficulties were a major obstacle for around 25% of the
firms answering the question about loan problems. The question on the causes of problems
for getting the loan was answered by 196 enterprises in 2011 and 152 enterprises in 2013.
Analysed in terms of proportions, the structure of problems changed slightly between 2011
and 2013 in that the enterprises had less issues with government regulation and lack of
collateral in 2013, but more issues with obtaining the clearance from the bank and

-164-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


describing the potential of the enterprise in the loan application. This suggests that the key
area for improving the loan access is the design of loan application procedures. The attention
should especially be given to the ways of obtaining clearances from bank authorities and
collateral requirements.
Figure 6.5: Causes of Problems for Getting the Loan
Difficulties in obtaining clearance from the bank
Lack of collateral
Complicated government regulations
2013
Not describing the potential of the enterprise

2011

Other
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Percentage

Table 6.8 looks at the relationship between obtaining formal credit and informal
financing. First, we see that only 26 per cent of firms obtain formal loans as compared to
informal ones. In other words, for every formal loan, there are around 2.5 informal loans
made to Vietnamese SMEs. Second, 475 firms out of 2,461 have both informal and formal
loans and around 70 per cent of the firms not having formal credit access use informal loans.
This is a five per cent increase in demand for informal loans compared to 2011. Comparing
this fact with the result in Table 6.4 (informal loans only finance around 14 per cent of total
investments) shows that informal loans are small but a frequent part of Vietnamese SMEs
financing scheme. Often-times undocumented advantage of informal borrowing is that it
usually occurs at zero interest rate within the closest social circles of firms. Our sample
shows that 56 per cent of all informal loans are advanced with zero interest rate. This is
more common among firms in rural than in urban areas, 32 compared to 21 per cent of
informal loans, respectively.

Informal loan

Table 6.8: Informal Loans and Credit Constraints

No
Yes
Total
Per cent

Formal loan
No
Yes
741
163
(82.0)
(18.0)

Total
904
(100.0)

Per cent
(36.7)

1,082
(69.5)
1,823
(74.1)

1,557
(100.0)
2,461
(100.0)

(63.3)

475
(30.5)
638
(25.9)

-165-

(100.0)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 6.9 looks at the determinants of formal and informal borrowing. In the top part
of the table we look at the full sample, while the bottom part excludes firms without credit
demand. The data show that larger firms are more likely to obtain both formal and informal
credit. The firm size remains an important determinant of obtaining credit finance when
firms without credit demand are excluded from the sample.
Table 6.9: Credit Access Characteristics
Panel (a) All firms
Formal Credit

Firm size (log number


of employees)
Household firm
(Yes=1)
Urban (Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Sector dummies
Observation
Pseudo R-squared

Firm size (log number


of employees)
Household firm
(Yes=1)
Urban (Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Sector dummies
Observation
Pseudo R-squared

Informal Credit

Credit (Formal +
Informal)
Coef
z-stat

Coef

z-stat

Coef

z-stat

0.142***

(12.67)

0.088***

(7.05)

0.115***

(9.32)

-0.069***

(-2.68)

-0.064**

(-2.32)

-0.067***

(-2.61)

-0.250***
(-12.78)
-0.011
(-0.47)
-0.098***
(-4.46)
-0.029
(-1.55)
-0.131***
(-6.28)
-0.117***
(-5.93)
Yes
Yes
Yes
2,461
2,461
2,461
0.18
0.06
0.08
Panel (b) Excluding Firms without Credit Demand
Credit (Formal +
Formal Credit
Informal Credit
Informal)
Coef
z-stat
Coef
z-stat
Coef
z-stat
0.162***

(9.82)

0.066***

(4.72)

0.079***

(6.78)

-0.093**

(-2.55)

-0.074**

(-2.36)

-0.077***

(-3.11)

-0.320***
(-10.95)
-0.055**
(-1.99)
Yes
1,544
0.14

0.056**
(2.16)
-0.092***
(-3.86)
Yes
1,544
0.06

-0.054**
(-2.51)
-0.064***
(-3.49)
Yes
1,544
0.11

Note: Probit, marginal effects. Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate significance at a 10%, 5% and 1%
level, respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15); furniture sector (ISIC 36) excluded from the estimation due to
collinearity.

At the same time, household firms are, depending on the specification, 7 to 9 per cent
less likely to obtain any form of credit. This indicates that formal enterprises have high
demand not only for formal, but also for the informal sources of financing. Firms in urban
areas are less likely to access formal credit in both specifications, but they tend to do better
when obtaining informal credit, as shown in the lower section of the table when firms
without credit demand are excluded. However, the joint measure for credit access for these
firms is negative. Urban firms are between 25 and 32 per cent less likely to obtain formal
credit than their rural counterparts, depending on the sample chosen. The access to informal

-166-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


loans depends on the size of firms social ties since the informal loans are usually obtained
from friends and relatives. This is why a larger reliance on informal borrowing is expected
among urban firms that potentially have a larger social network. Indeed, urban firms use
informal loans 1.3 times more frequently than formal loans, while rural firms are eight per
cent more likely to use formal loans. Firms in the south also have lower chances of obtaining
credit from all sources. Variable south is not well determined in the specification for formal
credit access, but it becomes strongly determined when the firms who do not need credit are
excluded. Southern firms are 5 per cent less common to have formal credit than the northern
firms. This illustrates a difficulty for some businesses because household-owned firms in the
south tend to rely more on formal loans to finance investments than comparable firms in
other provinces, as shown in Table 6.4.

-167-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

7. PRODUCTION, TECHNOLOGY AND LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY


This section examines the characteristics of production and technology as well as
labour productivity for SMEs in 2013 and compare the results to 2011. As such this chapter
is comparable to earlier reports (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012; CIEM, DoE,
ILSSA, 2010).

7.1. Diversification and Innovation


For the purpose of this report, a firm is defined as a diversifying enterprise if it
produces more than one 4-digit ISIC product. Product diversification is expected to make
enterprises less vulnerable to shocks, thereby increasing the probability of survival. It may,
however, come at the cost of lower short-run productivity. Table 7.1 shows the average
degree of diversification by firm size and location. In 2011, some 11per cent of the
enterprises produced more than one product defined per 4-digit ISIC category. This number
remained the same by 2013. The earlier analyses of the Vietnamese SMEs reveal the peak of
product diversification in 2009 when 15 per cent of surveyed firms produced more than one
product (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012; CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). Thus,
the latest survey round confirms the downward sloping trend detected in 2011. Overall, the
numbers in Table 7.1 suggest that the average Vietnamese enterprise is relatively
specialised. The tendency to produce more than one product is more commonly observed
among larger enterprises, indicating that specialisation decreases as enterprise size increases.
Lower levels of diversification in micro enterprises could indicate less competition in their
line of activity or alack of capacity to produce several goods simultaneously. Confirming the
pattern observed in 2011, the latest survey data show that rural enterprises and firms in the
north are more likely to diversify their product portfolio.
Table 7.1: Diversification and Innovation Rates (per cent)

All
Micro
Small
Medium
Urban
Rural
South
North

Diversification
(More than one 4-digit
ISIC)
2011
2013
11.0
10.9
10.1
8.8
11.1
16.1
20.7
16.7
9.3
9.6
12.3
11.9
8.2
9.6
13.0
11.9

Innovation 1
(New product development)
2011
4.0
3.4
4.6
8.9
5.2
3.1
3.3
4.5

2013
0.6
0.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.8

Innovation 2
(Improvement of existing
product)
2011
2013
38.4
16.3
32.9
12.7
48.8
24.2
57.9
30.3
46.9
18.5
32.1
14.6
43.1
15.3
35.1
17.0

Note: Numbers in percentages

The level of innovation is one of the driving forces of enterprise dynamics. An


enterprise is said to be innovative if it started production of a new product (at the 4-digit
ISIC level) during the last two years (innovation 1) or if it made significant improvements

-168-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


of existing products (innovation 2). From Table 7.1 we see that the proportion of
enterprises introducing a new product drastically declined between 2011 and 2013. Larger
firms remain more likely to introduce new products, as well as the firms in the North. In
2013, firms from urban and rural areas have shown the same, albeit low, tendency to
innovate. This is contrast to situation in 2011 when urban firms were more innovative than
enterprises from the rural provinces.
The proportion of enterprises improving existing products has declined from 41per
cent to 38 per cent between 2009 and 2011. Especially firms in the small group are driving
this observed decline. Again urban and enterprises in the south are more likely to improve
existing products than enterprises located in rural northern areas. This observation may point
to a large burden of accumulated goods: Instead of introducing new products or technology,
firms are focused on selling the stock.
Table 7.2 looks at diversification and innovation rates in selected sectors. Just like in
2011, firms in food industry appear to be less likely to diversify their product portfolio than
firms in other sectors. These firms also do not tend to innovate as much as other sectors.
Firms that process wood (ISIC 20) and metal products (ISIC 28) show higher degree of
diversification than firms in other sectors. Metal (ISIC 28) and furniture (ISIC 36) sectors
show a slightly higher degree of new product development than other sectors. Production of
furniture (ISIC 36) is also the sector in which the most of the improvements of the existing
products take place.
Table 7.2: Diversification and Innovation, by Sector (per cent)
Diversification

ISIC (4-digit)
15
20
25
28
36

Food and beverages


Wood products
Rubber products
Fabricated metal
products
Furniture

2011
6.2
14.3
12.7

2013
5.2
14.9
12.9

12.9
16.4

14.8
8.5

Innovation
(new product
development)
2011
2013
2.3
0.0
2.5
0.5
2.9
0.0
4.5
7.9

1.1
1.2

Innovation
(improvement of
existing product)
2011
2013
26.8
6.9
31.5
22.4
51.0
24.8
46.1
58.2

18.2
28.1

Note: Only sectors with more than 100 observations per year included. Numbers in percentages.

Table 7.3 looks at the diversification and innovation transition matrices for the
balanced panel. Panel (a) shows the data on product diversification. There, we see that only
7.3 per cent of the firms not diversifying in 2011 changed to a less specialised production
profile in 2013. Confirming the tendency for specialisation, 63.3 per cent of the firms that
were diversifying their production in 2011 specialised to single 4-digit ISIC product in 2013.
Panel (b) shows a brief analysis of firms tendencies to innovate over the observed two-year
period. We see that new product innovation by the same firm does not happen every second
year. Especially, none of the firms introduced a new product in both 2011 and 2013. A large
share of firms, 86 per cent, has not introduced any new products during the considered

-169-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


period. Panel (c) presents the affinity of firms towards the improvement of existing products
and this is the area where a lot of dynamic is observed. Some 13.5 per cent of firms report to
have innovated by modified their existing products. Unlike with the first type of innovation,
where new products do not get introduced frequently, we see that 22 per cent of the firms
who innovated in 2011 also made changes to product lines during 2013. A vast majority of
firms (1,047 out of 1,988), however, have not improved their existing products neither in
2011 nor in 2013, supporting the argument of specialisation.
Table 7.3: Diversification and Innovation Transition Matrices
Diversification

No 2011
Yes 2011
Total
Per cent

No 2013
1,638
(92.8)
140
(63.3)
1,778
(89.5)

Yes 2013
128
(7.2)
81
(36.7)
209
(10.5)

Total
1,766
(100.0)
221
(100.0)
1,987
(100.0)

Per cent
(88.9)

Total
1,908
(100.0)
80
(100.0)
1,988
(100.0)

Per cent
(96.0)

Total
1,211
(100.0)
777
(100.0)
1,988
(100.0)

Per cent
(60.9)

(11.1)
(100.0)

Innovation 1

No 2011
Yes 2011
Total
Per cent

No 2013
1,895
(99.3)
80
(100.0)
1,975
(99.3)

Yes 2013
13
(0.7)
0.0
(0.0)
13
(0.7)

(4.0)
(100.0)

Innovation 2

No 2011
Yes 2011
Total
Per cent

No 2013
1,047
(86.5)
604
(77.7)
1,651
(62.7)

Yes 2013
164
(13.5)
173
(22.3)
337
(37.3)

(39.1)
(100.0)

Results of pooled probit estimations for describing diversification and innovation


characteristics using firm size, location, ownership type and sector are reported with robust
t-statistics in Table 7.4. Overall, the 2013 survey data show similar picture of the
Vietnamese SME sector in terms on diversification and innovation as in 2011.

-170-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


First, the size-effect reported in Table 7.1 is confirmed, and larger enterprises are
shown to diversify and innovate, whereas the positive predisposition to innovate is only
well-determined in the case of coefficient estimate for innovation 2. Second, household
firms are less likely to diversify, but they do not show statistically lower likelihood to
innovate than other firm categories. Third, urban firms diversify less but are more likely to
improve existing products than their rural counterparts. Fourth, firms in the south tend to
diversify and innovate less than the firms in the north, although the coefficient estimate is
only significant in case of the innovation 1. One possible explanation for the observed
difference in specialisation depending on firm location may be that competition is fiercer in
the southern urban areas (HCMC) relative to the other provinces in the sample. This result
confirms the findings in previous reports (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012;
CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). Finally, the time dummies included confirm that firms are
innovating less frequently in 2013 than in 2011, whereas the statistically insignificant year
dummy in case of diversification signals no changes between 2011and 2013 in the
probability of diversifying product lines (after firm size, legal structure, location and sector
are controlled for).
Table 7.4: Diversification and Innovation Characteristics
Diversification
Coef
z-stat
Firm size (log number
of employees)
Household firm (Yes=1)
Urban (Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Year dummy
Sector dummies
Observation
Pseudo R-squared

0.014***

Innovation 1
Coef
z-stat

(2.67)

-0.060***
(-4.01)
-0.054***
(-5.13)
-0.026***
(-2.66)
-0.004
(-0.47)
Yes
3,961
0.06

0.002

(0.78)

-0.005
(-1.05)
0.003
(0.61)
-0.006*
(-1.77)
-0.030***
(-6.67)
Yes
3,896
0.11

Innovation 2
Coef
z-stat
0.072***

(8.36)

-0.007
(-0.35)
0.044**
(2.54)
0.011
(0.75)
-0.224***
(-16.02)
Yes
3,961
0.12

Note: Probit, marginal effects. Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate significance at a 10%, 5% and 1%
level, respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).

Table 7.5 looks at the relationship between diversification, innovation and firm
dynamics measured by employment growth in Panel (a) and firm exit in Panel (b). Panel (a)
reveals that none of the three variables that measure diversification and innovation are
positive and well determined in the employment growth equation. The surveyed firms
experienced no gain in employment growth due to diversification and innovation in the
period 2011to 2013. This is a negative development compared to 2011 when firms
tendencies to innovate resulted in 3 per cent employment growth (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and
UNU-WIDER, 2012). However, Panel (b) shows that firms improving existing products
(Innovation 2) were 2.9 per cent less likely to stop operating. Just as in the Panel (a), the
diversification and Innovation 1 indicators were not well-determined in any of the firm
dynamics specifications.

-171-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 7.5: Diversification, Innovation and Firm Dynamics

Diversification
Innovation 1
Innovation 2
Firm size (log number
of employees)
Household firm (Yes=1)
Urban (Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Sector dummies
Observation
R-squared

Diversification
Innovation 1
Innovation 2
Firm size (log number
of employees)
Household firm (Yes=1)
Urban (Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Sector dummies
Observation
Pseudo R-squared

Coef
0.021

Employment growth (OLS)


Coef
t-stat

t-stat
(1.03)

0.047

-0.116***

(-15.41)

-0.142***
(-8.00)
0.017
(1.16)
0.033**
(2.56)
Yes
1,987
0.13

Coef
-0.011

-0.117***

-0.033***

(-3.53)

-0.077***
(-3.22)
0.071***
(3.85)
-0.027*
(-1.67)
Yes
2,418
0.02

(-15.47)

Exit (Probit)
Coef
z-stat
-0.014
-0.032***

t-stat

0.009

(0.65)
(-15.60)

(1.59)

-0.143***
(-8.06)
0.015
(1.04)
0.033**
(2.56)
Yes
1,988
0.13

z-stat
(-0.44)

Coef

-0.117***

-0.143***
(-8.05)
0.015
(1.02)
0.031**
(2.46)
Yes
1,988
0.13

Coef

z-stat

-0.029*

(-1.75)

-0.031***

(-3.30)

(-0.36)
(-3.51)

-0.076***
(-3.19)
0.072***
(3.90)
-0.027*
(-1.66)
Yes
2,419
0.02

-0.077***
(-3.24)
0.074***
(3.97)
-0.026
(-1.57)
Yes
2,419
0.02

Note: OLS and Probit estimates, marginal effects. Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate significance at a
10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).

Figure 7.1 reports the most important problems firms face when introducing a new
product line. The lack of capital is by far perceived as the most important problem for the
surveyed SMEs: around half of firms name the lack of capital as the main obstacle for
introducing new products. The figure also shows that rural enterprises are more constrained
in terms of capital than their urban counterparts. Around one quarter of firms is experiencing
problems with identifying new market outlets for products. Problems with finding suitable
machinery and production premises are identified by 10 per cent of firms as major
challenges for introducing new products. Rural enterprises are more prone to experiencing
problems with securing suitable production premises, machinery and equipment, while their
urban counterparts face more challenges when finding skilled labour. This finding is perhaps
illustrative of a slight skills disadvantage in urban areas or the tendency for less
technological advanced operations in rural areas.

-172-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 7.1: The Most Important Problem of Introducing a New Product (per cent)
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lack of capital
Lack of market outlet
Lack of suitable machinery/equipment
Difficulty in finding suitable premises
Lack of skilled labour
Lack of raw material
Complicated government regulations
Lack of technical know-how
All

Other

Rural

Urban

7.2. Labour Productivity Characteristics


This sub-section of the report focuses on two different measures of labour productivity:
(i) real revenue per full-time employee and (ii) real value added per full-time employee. This
analysis is performed on 1,862 enterprises included in both 2011 and 2013 survey round.
Table 7.6 shows the two labour productivity measures by firm size and location. The average
real revenue per full-time employee was 61.5 million VND in 2013, whereas real value added
per full-time employee was 16.5 million VND. Both figures reflect a real labour productivity
decline compared to 2011, but they are almost identical to situation in 2009 (see, for example
CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012; CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). At the same time,
larger enterprises have higher real revenue and value added per employee than smaller
enterprises. Urban enterprises have comparatively higher revenue and value added per
employee than rural enterprises. The same is observed for enterprises in the south. However,
labour productivity figures are lower than in 2011 for firms in all locations.
Table 7.6: Labour Productivity by Firm Size and Location

All
Micro
Small
Medium
Urban
Rural
South
North

2011
77.3
65.8
92.2
151.3
93.4
66.2
82.9
73.2

Labour Productivity 1
2013
Growth
61.5
0.95 [0.87]
54.3
0.96
75.8
0.95
99.6
0.96
70.4
0.92
55.4
0.98
65.5
0.96
58.6
0.95

2011
20.7
18.0
25.4
33.4
26.2
16.9
23.1
19.0

Labour Productivity 2
2013
Growth
16.5
0.96 [0.89]
14.1
0.96
21.7
0.94
27.0
0.98
20.1
0.93
14.0
0.97
18.6
0.97
15.0
0.95

Note: Million real VND. Mean labour productivity (LP) growth is defined as LP2013/LP2011. Median LP growth in brackets.

-173-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 7.7 shows labour productivity numbers by sector in 2011 and 2013. The analysis
is limited to sectors with more than 100 observations in both years. Compared to 2011, we
see a decline in the average real revenue per full-time employee in all sectors except
processing of wood products (ISIC 20) with 71.9 million VND per employee in 2013. In
terms of the second labour productivity measure, the real value added per full-time
employee, all sectors are showing lower values than in 2011. Among the studied sectors,
production of fabricated metal products (ISIC 28) has the highest real value added per
employee. It is also visible from Table 7.7 that labour productivity in furniture sector (ISIC
36) decreased the least per second measure. The average labour productivity growth rates
are below one in all sectors, showing a one to six per cent decline. This corroborates the
overall impression about losses in labour productivity among Vietnamese SMEs in the
2011-2013 period. In addition, the variation across firms is large. This is indicated by the
fact that around 75 per cent of the firms experienced negative labour productivity growth
between 2011 and 2013.
Table 7.7: Labour Productivity by Sector
ISIC (4-digit)
15
Food and beverages
20
Wood products
28
Fabricated metal products
36
Furniture
Share of firms with negative LP growth
(LP growth<1)

LP 1
2011
2013
71.5
55.0
66.4
71.9
72.7
58.5
68.4
49.6

LP 2
2011
17.6
17.7
19.5
21.5

2013
14.4
15.2
16.9
15.8

LP 1
Growth
0.94
0.99
0.95
0.95

LP 2
Growth
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.95

0.75

0.77

Note: LP stands for labour productivity. Only sectors with more than 100 observations per year included.

Finally, Table 7.8 shows the results of the OLS estimation outlining the relationship
between labour productivity growth (2011 to 2013) and a set of standard explanatory
variables (location, ownership form, sector and firm size) measured at 2011 level to which
we have added indicator variables for diversification and innovation. In addition, we control
for the 2011labour productivity level. Robust standard errors are reported next to the
estimation results.
We observe the usual decreasing pattern of returns, i.e. a highly significant negative
coefficient estimate on the 2011 productivity level, indicating that firms with a high initial
labour productivity experience lower growth over time. This is in line with findings about
the Vietnamese SMEs in 2011 (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012). The results
presented in Table 7.8 also show that labour productivity increases with firm size,
independent of the measurement of labour productivity, confirming the pattern observed in
Table 7.6. Diversified production is positively associated with the second measure of labour
productivity growth, meaning that enterprises are likely to increase value added per
employee by incorporating changes to existing product lines. Conversely, household firms
are not the main beneficiaries of growth in value-added labour productivity. Lastly,
enterprises located in urban areas and in the south experience higher labour productive
growth than enterprises located in rural provinces and in the North.

-174-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 7.8: Labour Productivity Characteristics

Labour productivity level (log)


Firm size (log number of employees)
Diversification (Yes=1)
Innovation 1 (Yes=1)
Innovation 2 (Yes=1)
Household firm (Yes=1)
Urban (Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Sector dummies
Observation
Pseudo R-squared

Labour Productivity Growth (2011 to 2013)


Dln (LP1)
Dln (LP2)
Coef
t-stat
Coef
t-stat
-0.477***
(-20.16)
-0.577***
(-24.11)
0.124***
(5.82)
0.128***
(7.27)
0.064
(1.24)
0.089**
(2.02)
0.015
(0.19)
-0.018
(-0.27)
0.021
(0.65)
-0.020
(-0.69)
-0.066
(-1.35)
-0.070*
(-1.79)
-0.054
(-1.47)
0.075**
(2.30)
0.052*
(1.65)
0.076***
(2.73)
Yes
Yes
1,861
1,861
0.27
0.33

Note: OLS. Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level,
respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).

7.3. Technology and Technical Efficiency


Table 7.9 shows some characteristics of the technology employed by the surveyed
firms in terms of the level, the age and the purchase condition of technology. The table
shows that 5 per cent of enterprises use only hand tools in their production. This is an
important change compared to 2007 when 8 per cent of enterprises used only hand tools
(CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). The number of enterprises using only manually operated
machinery declined from 5 per cent in 2011 to 2.2 per cent in 2013, while the reliance on
power driven machinery has increased from 27 per cent to 29 per cent in the same period.
Equipment and machinery used in production are fairly new some 84 per cent being
in use less than 10 years. The figure is almost the same for both 2011 and 2013 and when
the balanced panel structure is imposed. Similarly, the share of firms using machinery and
equipment older than 10 years has stayed almost the same in the past two years. Finally,
around 74 per cent of technology was purchased new in 2013, and the number is unchanged
in the 2011 sample. A small increase in the purchase of second hand technology is reported
and a 1.3 percentage points increase in the use of self-constructed technology. Theory
suggests that enterprises buying used capital goods are often the most credit constrained
ones. The data reported in Table 7.9 may therefore suggest that the number of creditconstrained enterprises has increased in the considered period.5 This effect persists when the
balanced panel is considered, suggesting that the new group of enterprises sampled in 2013
employ a similar share of used equipment and machinery in production.

This observation is in accordance with the findings in Chapter 6.

-175-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 7.9 Technology Characteristics (per cent)
Level of technology

Age of technology

New or second hand

Hand tools only


Manually operated machinery only
Power driven machinery only
All of the above
Under 3 years old
Between 3 and 5 years old
Between 6 and 10 years old
Between 11 and 20 years old
More than 20 years old
New
Used
Self-constructed

2011
5.3
5.0
26.8
62.9
17.4
32.0
34.7
13.7
2.3
73.7
22.2
4.1

2013
5.0
2.2
29.0
63.8
15.2
33.5
35.8
13.1
2.3
73.8
23.3
2.8

Figure 7.2 shows the proportion of enterprises that obtained a new technology by location
and size. The share of enterprises adopting new technologies decreased by 6.6 percentage
points, from 13 per cent in 2013 to 6.4 per cent in 2011. This is the lowest rate of new
technology adoption since 2005 and it is close to the level observed in 2007 (CIEM, DoE,
ILSSA, 2010; Rand et al., 2008). When the balanced panel is considered, the share of
enterprises obtaining new technologies remains only slightly changed, showing a decrease of
7.2 percentage points. The decrease in new technology introduced in the production process
may be caused by the observed decline in innovation rates because new innovations often lead
to adoption of new technologies. The observed decline may also reflect a higher level of
uncertainty in doing business as a result of the financial crisis limiting the demand of enterprises
for new technology. The decrease in the new technology adoption can be attributed to urban,
small and medium enterprises that saw the greatest decline in the adoption rates. Comparing the
categories between themselves we see that rural and urban enterprises had similar tendency to
adopt new technologies in the past two years. As with diversification, a size-effect appears to
exist: Larger enterprises are more inclined to use new technologies in production.
Figure 7.2: New Technology
2011

2013

40
35

Percent

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
All firms

Urban

Rural

-176-

Micro

Small

Medium

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


We now compare the performance of technology upgraders with enterprises that chose
to continue to produce with existing technology. Table 7.10 shows the result of a simple
OLS and probit estimations illustrating the association between firm growth and exit, and
the indicator variables for the introduction of new technology, employment growth and firm
survival. The indicator variable for introduction of new technology is significant in both the
employment growth and firm survival regressions, but different effects are reported. The
positive coefficient estimate suggests that introducing a new technology is positively
associated with firm growth, while the chance of firms exiting decreases when new
production technologies are introduced. The positive relationship between new technology
and firm growth indicates that new technologies may not necessarily be less labour intensive
compared to older ones. Furthermore, the estimation results indicate that larger enterprises
grow less rapidly6and that the probability of survival increases with enterprise size (firms are
less likely to exit if they are larger). These conclusions are made independently of the
question of causality, which is left for future research.
Table 7.9: Effects of Introducing a New Technology
Employment growth

New technology introduced (Yes = 1)


Firm size (log number of employees)
Household firm (Yes=1)
Urban (Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Sector dummies
Observations
Pseudo R-squared

Exit (probit)

Coefficient

t-stats

Marginal effects

t-stats

0.045***
-0.119***
-0.140***
0.016
0.030**

(2.60)
(-15.66)
(-7.92)
(1.09)
(2.36)

-0.039*
-0.030***
-0.078***
0.072***
-0.026

(-1.80)
(-3.22)
(-3.27)
(3.89)
(-1.59)

Yes
1,988
0.134

Yes
2,419
0.023

Note: OLS and Probit, marginal effects. Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate significance at a 10%, 5%
and 1% per cent level, respectively. Base: HCMC, household firm, food processing (ISIC 15).

Technical efficiency (TE) indicates enterprises ability to produce the highest level of
output from a given bundle of inputs. Here, technical efficiency is estimated using a
stochastic frontier production model with two different sets of output and input measures.
For the purpose of this report, technical efficiency is measured in two ways. The first
technical efficiency measure uses real value added as the output measure and total regular
full-time employment and the real value of physical capital as inputs. The second measure of
technical efficiency employs real total revenue as the output measure and total regular fulltime employment, real value of physical capital and total value of intermediate goods as
inputs. The estimate of technical efficiency is obtained using the balanced sample. An
enterprise operating at the highest possible level of efficiency is expected to have technical
efficiency index of one.
6

This supports the evolutionary theory put forward by Jovanovic (1982).

-177-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 7.3 shows average technical efficiency using two afore mentioned measures.
The average technical efficiency is 0.40 when estimated using the first measure and 0.41
when estimated using the second measure. Only slightly higher level of technical efficiency
was observed in 2009 (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). The estimated technical efficiency level
among the Vietnamese SMEs is not in line with the efficiency range suggested by Tybout
(2000). He finds little support for the view that the market in developing countries is
relatively tolerant of inefficient enterprises and reports mean technical efficiency levels
around 60 and 70 per cent of the best practice frontier. The lower average efficiency for the
surveyed SMEs may suggest that markets in Vietnam are more tolerant towards inefficient
enterprises than previously expected. Two possible explanation for this observation are (i)
the majority of the surveyed enterprises may be operating in market niches that are
unattractive to more advanced enterprises, allowing the enterprises to stay within their line
of activity although not technical efficient, and (ii) rapid growth of enterprises may induce
them to continuously change technologies of production, which may not allow them to fully
benefit from learning-by-doing in order to produce more efficiently.
Figure 7.3: Average Technical Efficiency (TE)
TE measure 1

TE measure 2

0,50
0,45
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
All firms

New Incumbent
entrant

Micro

Small

Medium

Urban

Rural

In addition, Figure 7.3 shows that medium sized enterprises are more efficient than
smaller firms. It also shows that new entrants are less technical efficient than incumbent
firms in terms of both measures. This is in line with expectations because new entrants are
expected to be less technically efficient when they enter the market and over time as
learning-by-doing takes place, their efficiency should increase. Rural enterprises are on
average found to produce around 2 percentage points higher level of output given the level
of labour and physical capital.
Enterprises face different prices of inputs, and therefore select different combinations
of inputs, depending on the environment in which they operate. For instance, small

-178-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


enterprises may face lower input prices with respect to labour, while larger enterprises may
face lower intermediate input prices due to scale advantages. This may affect the demand for
different inputs. The second measure takes this into consideration by including the value of
intermediate inputs in the measure for average technical efficiency. Figure 7.3 reports the
estimation result of the stochastic frontier production model using the second measure of
technical efficiency. The extension of the measure does not bring widely different findings.
For all categories of enterprises, the level of technical efficiency estimated through the
second measure is almost the same except for the level of technical efficiency of new
entrants that by this measure have 10 percentage points higher efficiency level.
The distribution of the Kernel density estimates of the enterprises technical efficiency
is not reported here, but they carry useful information. The distribution of the Kernel density
for TE measure 1 is right-skewed with several turning points on the right tail, indicating that
a substantial number of enterprises in the sample have a higher technical efficiency than the
sample average. Similarly, the distribution of the Kernel density estimates for measure 2 is
skewed towards right as well, also with turning points and increasing towards one. This
indicates that few enterprises, when correcting for the value of intermediate inputs, have
above average technical efficiency.
Table 7.11 presents the OLS estimates of two technical efficiency regressions using
both measures for technical efficiency and the usual determinants (firm age, size, location
and ownership). We start by considering the estimation results using measure 1, where real
value added measures output and real physical capital and full-time employment measure
inputs. Just as the descriptive evidence suggested, new entrants are found to be less efficient
than incumbent enterprises. Small enterprises are found to be less efficient than micro firms.
Taking a closer look at location, evidence suggests that only enterprises operating in Phu
Tho and Nghe An are significantly more efficient than those in HCMC. Firms from Ha Noi,
Quang Nam and Khanh Hoa are less technically efficient. Evidence further suggests that,
with exception of partnership/collective/cooperative enterprises, household enterprises
produce a relatively lower amount of output given the input of labour and physical capital.
We now take a closer look at the estimation result obtained using measure 2, where
real total revenue is used as the output measure and the value of real physical capital, fulltime employment and intermediate goods are used to measure inputs. In this specification,
new entrants are found to be less technical efficient than incumbent firms. Medium sized
enterprises are found to be more efficient than micro enterprises, whereas small enterprises
appear to be as efficient as micro enterprises when correcting for age, location and ownership
type. According to Jovanovic (1993), it is more efficient to make two products rather than one
at a large scale, suggesting that the missing diversification by micro sized enterprises found
previously may explain the lower level of technical efficiency. Considering location, the same
result is obtained as with the measure 1. The estimation results on ownership type are some
what changed: households are more technically efficient than other ownership types with
exception of partnership/collective/cooperative and joint stock companies.

-179-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 7.11: Determinants of Technical Efficiency
Measure 1
Coefficient
Firm age
Firm size

New entrant
Small
Medium
Location
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
Long An
Ownership
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company
Sector dummies included
Observation
R-squared

-0.171***
-0.034**
0.026
-0.057***
0.055**
-0.018
-0.025
0.067***
-0.050**
-0.087***
-0.030
0.019
0.065***
0.059
0.084***
0.064*
Yes
1,988
0.068

t-stats
(-10.79)
(-2.20)
(0.70)
(-3.21)
(2.37)
(-0.95)
(-1.12)
(3.07)
(-2.49)
(-3.37)
(-1.01)
(0.64)
(2.82)
(1.45)
(4.86)
(1.85)

Measure 2
Coefficient

t-stats

-0.100*** (-13.18)
-0.014
(-1.54)
0.037*
(1.68)
-0.034***
(-3.26)
0.032**
(2.31)
-0.010
(-0.82)
-0.011
(-0.86)
0.045***
(3.55)
-0.021*
(-1.65)
-0.045***
(-2.80)
-0.024
(-1.36)
0.014
(0.84)
0.023*
(1.75)
0.038
(1.62)
0.034***
(3.40)
0.028
(1.39)
Yes
1,988
0.068

Note: OLS with robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% per cent level,
respectively. Base: incumbent, micro, HCMC, household firm, food processing (ISIC 15). Measure 1: Real value
added, real physical capital and full-time employment. Measure 2: Real revenue, real physical capital,
intermediate inputs and full-time employment.

7.4. Details on Production Inputs and Business Services


This sub-section focuses on capacity utilization and the key inputs enterprises use in
manufacturing production processes. Capacity utilization is a measure of current production
levels compared to the maximum possible production level using only existing equipment.
Enterprises were asked about their ability to increase production without the need to
purchase new machinery or equipment.
Table 7.12 shows the result by enterprise size, age and location. Only one per cent of
firms stated that they would not be able to increase their production capacity at all. This is a
huge decline compared to 16 per cent registered in 2009 (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010).
However, one-third believes that they would not be able to increase production capacity by
more than 10 per cent. Slightly higher proportion of firms (37 per cent) expects to be able to
increase productive capacity by 25 per cent and about 20 per cent of firms maintain to be
able to increase capacity by 50 per cent. Less than one per cent of enterprises believe that
they can double the capacity. This indicates that capacity utilization rates are, on average,
relatively high. New firms count on increasing their capacity by 50 per cent on average,

-180-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


while the responses of incumbent firms resemble those of the sample average. Looking at
firm size, smaller enterprises are less confident about increasing production by more than 25
per cent, suggesting that smaller enterprises are closer to full capacity utilization. Urban
enterprises run closer to their full capacity than rural firms, with around 40 per cent of urban
enterprises stating that they would not be able to increase their productive capacity by more
than 10 per cent. Slightly lower proportion of rural enterprises aims at increasing their
capacity by 25 per cent.
Table 7.12: Capacity Utilisation in 2013 (per cent)

Total
Age

All
New entrant
Incumbent
Size
Micro
Small
Medium
Location Urban
Rural

Not at all

No more
than 10%

1.0
0.0
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.0
0.3
1.5

33.8
20.8
33.9
34.1
34.8
24.4
40.9
28.1

Between 10 Between 25 Between 50 By more


and 25%
and 50%
and 100% than 100%
36.6
58.3
36.4
35.5
36.6
50.4
35.5
37.5

20.8
20.8
20.8
21.2
19.6
19.9
16.8
23.9

7.5
0.0
7.5
7.4
8.1
5.3
6.5
8.2

0.5
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.8

Note: Question asked: By how much would you be able to increase your production from the present level using
existing equipment/machinery only?

Inventory considerations such as access to raw materials and energy and transport
facilities shape the everyday business decisions of enterprises. The average distance to the
main supplier was 45 kilometres in 2011, but it increased to 63 kilometres in 2013.
Therefore, it is interesting to look at the details of the location of suppliers of raw materials
and we do that in Figure 7.4. Some 82 per cent of intermediate inputs in 2013 were sourced
from a supplier located within the same province as the recipient enterprise, whereas in 2011
this number was 83 per cent. The slight decrease may reflect a rise in information about
opportunities across provinces for obtaining relevant inputs. At the same time, there was an
increase in sourcing inputs from neighbouring provinces compared to 2011, while
intermediate inputs from other non-neighbouring provinces make a smaller share of input
purchases in 2013, around 6 per cent. Considering this development, it may be that
transportation costs have slightly increased during the last four years prompting the
enterprises to purchase more intermediate goods from neighbouring provinces.

-181-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 7.4: Details on Suppliers of Raw Materials
Percentage
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Same commune
Other commune within district
2011
Other district within province

2013

Neighbouring province
Other province (non-neighbouring)
Direct import

The observed changes in suppliers of raw materials could arise due to the criteria for
selecting suppliers. Around 95 per cent of the enterprises report that suppliers can freely be
selected in the market. Figure 7.5 reports how firms identify suppliers and the main criterias
for selecting suppliers. The figure shows an increased reliance on personal contacts in
selecting suppliers compared to 2011. Around 45per cent of enterprises select suppliers
through personal contacts while 43 per cent identify suppliers by own search process. The
Vietnamese SMEs seem to be little responsive to suppliers marketing efforts when making
choices about input supply. In selecting a supplier of intermediate inputs the greatest
importance by far is given to competitive price. Firms also care about the quality standard of
the inputs, but to a lesser extent than in 2011. Security of supply is important to 11 per cent
of enterprises, while knowing the supplier personally, terms of credit and geographic
proximity only pay a minor role when enterprises select suppliers of raw materials.
Figure 7.5: Identification and Main Criteria for Selecting Suppliers
2011

2013

60
50

Percent

40
30
20
10
0
Personal
contact

Own search Marketing Competitive Quality


processes efforts by
price
standards
suppliers

How are suppliers identified?

Secure
supply

Know
supplier
personally

Terms of
credit

Main criteria for selecting suppliers

-182-

Geographic
proximity

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


8. EMPLOYMENT
This chapter analyses the structure of the labour market in the Vietnamese SME
manufacturing sector based on a matched employer-employee data set. The chapter will
consider various aspects of the labour market including workforce composition, occupation
composition, hiring methods, trade unions, social benefits, education and training of the
workforce in addition to wage level and wage determinants. Relying on both data from small
and medium sized firms as well as data collected among employees in these firms it is
possible to get additional knowledge and make the analysis more insightful.

8.1. Demographic Structure


Figure 8.1 shows the demographic structure of firm ownership and management. It is
useful to analyse youth and senior entrepreneurship as their perceptions about technology,
financial capabilities and management styles may differ. While younger entrepreneurs are
more likely to be innovative and use new technologies, older entrepreneurs are more likely
to have better access to finance. Our sample shows that the owners of micro enterprises tend
to be predominantly in the oldest age group, 55 years and older. The highest prevalence of
small and medium enterprise owners is in the 45-55 age group. While people younger than
35 tend to own small and medium enterprises, they are not likely to own micro enterprises.
The youngest demographic groups tend to be employed as managers in the SMEs. It is
common to find managers from the 25-35 age group in medium and small enterprises, while
micro enterprises tend to prefer slightly older managers, those from the 35-45 age group.
Figure 8.1: Demographic Structure of Firm Owners and Managers
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Micro

Small

Medium

Micro

Owner
18 - 24 years

25 - 35 years

Small

Medium

Manger
35 - 45 years

-183-

45 - 55 years

55 - 65 years

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


8.2. Workforce Structure and Stability
Using the balanced panel data, Table 8.1 reveals that the average share of regular
workers in Vietnamese SMEs has not changed on average between 2011and 2013. The share
of full-time employees has, however, declined by one percentage point in the observed twoyear period, while the share of unpaid workers has increased by approximately the same
amount. The female labour force went through the highest change: the share of women
working in SMEs increased from 36 per cent in 2011 to 38 per cent in 2013. This pattern
holds across all firm size categories, but the departures are notable when comparing
enterprises by location. In urban areas, we see an increase in the share of regular full-time
employees and a twofold decline in the use of unpaid labour. The increased reliance on
unpaid labour in rural firms is possibly a consequence of higher prevalence of micro firms
that employ mostly own household members. Enterprises in the south tended to decrease the
share of full-time labour and to increase female employment. The use of unpaid and female
labour increased in the North.
Table 8.10: Labour Force Composition (per cent of total workforce)
All
Micro
Small
Medium
Urban
Rural
South
North
2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013
Regular
Full-time
Female

96.2 96.1 96.8 96.4 94.7 95.1 95.1 95.8


89.6 88.6 88.5 87.0 91.8 92.3 92.3 93.6
36.5 38.3 34.3 36.7 40.9 41.9 43.3 45.1

95.9 96.6 96.6 95.7 97.8 96.6


87.7 92.5 92.2 85.8 93.3 90.3
36.1 36.6 37.0 39.6 34.3 36.2

95.0
86.8
38.2

95.7
87.3
40.0

Unpaid

38.1 39.4 53.2 53.1

5.4

5.1

0.1

0.2

49.7 21.3 21.4 52.0 30.0 30.2

44.0

46.1

Observations 1,988 1,988 1,371 1,430 496

460

121

98

818

1,143

1,143

818 1,170 1,170 845

845

Note: Average, percentages of total workforce, balanced panel

The change from 2011 to 2013 was not driven by new firms in the manufacturing sector
since the results are based on the balanced panel. The described trend in the SME workforce
could be a consequence of the increased competition where the costs of doing business
require adjustments in employee composition over the years. It could also come from the
decreased labour availability in some locations where the labour force is able to negotiate
better employment conditions, illustrated for example by a lower share of unpaid labour in
urban and southern regions. Also, it could signal a lower regulatory pressure for formalising
labour conditions in specific locations, namely rural and northern regions. Finally, current
labour force situation could be a sign of the increasing instability in the economy and a
declining confidence in the future that prompt firms to hire more unpaid workers.
The share of unpaid workers employed in informal firms increased from 71 per cent in
2011 to 77 per cent in 2013.7 The share of unpaid workers in formal firms kept at 24 per cent
in the same period. This observation follows the findings in Rand and Torm (2012) who,
based on the surveys from 2007 and 2009, show that formalisation of firms positively affects
not only their performance, but also the workers in terms of improved contract conditions.
7

Informal firms are understood as firms without either an Enterprise Code Number or a tax code.

-184-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 8.2 shows the labour force composition as a per cent of the total workforce.
The share of professional, production, office and sales workers increases with firm size
(both in 2011 and 2013). Production workers constitute the vast majority of the total
workforce and their share is higher in the urban than in the rural regions. However,
between 2011 and 2013, firms saw a decrease in the proportion of production workers
across all size and location categories. This can be well contrasted with the proportion of
managers, which rose by around 3% from 2011 to 2013. An increase in the managerial
staff was observed for all firm categories.
Table 8.2: Labour Force Composition by Occupation (per cent)
All

Micro

Small

Medium

Urban

Rural

South

North

2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013
Manager

29.1 32.4

37.6

40.6

11.2

12.0

5.6

6.3

21.1

24.6

34.6 37.8

25.8

27.8

31.5 35.7

Professional

3.3

3.4

1.6

1.7

7.1

7.8

8.0

8.1

5.6

5.3

1.8

2.0

4.1

4.1

2.8

2.9

Office

1.6

1.6

0.6

0.6

3.7

4.0

4.9

5.2

2.8

2.7

0.8

0.8

2.1

2.0

1.3

1.3

Sales

2.8

2.3

2.2

1.5

4.1

4.3

3.6

3.8

4.0

3.2

1.9

1.7

4.1

3.1

1.9

1.7

Service

0.7

0.8

0.3

0.5

1.4

1.5

1.8

2.3

1.0

1.1

0.4

0.6

0.9

1.1

0.5

0.6

Production

62.3 59.3

57.7

54.9

72.1

70.1 75.5

73.8

65.3

62.8

60.3 56.8

62.8

61.7

62.0 57.5

Apprentice

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

Observations 1,980 1,980 1,371 1,428 496

457

118

95

815

818 1,170 1,162 843

0.2

0.2

0.2

843 1,142 1,137

Note: Percentages of total workforce, balanced panel. Eleven firms did not answer the question in 2013 and 4 firms did not answer in 2011.

Other occupations, such as professionals, which also require labour with high skills,
stayed almost unchanged, with an average share in total labour force of 3.35%. Occupations
requiring a medium level of skills, such as office personnel, remained constant. A decline in
the proportion of sales personnel observed between 2011 and 2013 appears to be driven
mostly by micro-sized enterprises. A rise in the share of service personnel between 2011 and
2013 is possibly due to positive changes in the medium enterprises, even though this
occupation category represents a very small share of total work force.
The employee survey reveals that occupation shifts do occur and the dynamics are
presented in Table 8.3. Of those workers who currently hold manager positions slightly
over 30 per cent were production workers before, 19.3 per cent did not work before and
only 18.2 per cent were managers in their previous job. This indicates that a manager
position does not require specific experience. These findings also point towards the
possibility of advancing in job functions. Nevertheless, it seems that production and
professional workers are the ones with the highest tendency to stay in the same line of
work when they change jobs.

-185-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 8.3: Occupation Transition Matrix
Current job function
Previous job
Manager
Professional
Office
Sales
Service
Production
Did not work
Number of observations

Manager

Professional

Office

Sales

Service

Production

34

(18.2)

(1.4)

(0.0)

(1.8)

(0.0)

(0.6)

26

61

16

12

(13.9)

(41.5)

(11.1)

(4.4)

(4.3)

(1.3)

17

25

43

12

(9.1)

(17.0)

(29.9)

(10.6)

(4.3)

(0.9)

13

32

(4.3)

(3.4)

(9.0)

(28.3)

(4.3)

(0.6)

16

17

(3.7)

(2.0)

(6.3)

(4.4)

(22.9)

(1.9)

59

20

21

22

610

(31.6)

(6.1)

(13.9)

(18.6)

(31.4)

(67.0)

36

42

43

36

23

253

(19.3)

(28.6)

(29.9)

(31.9)

(32.9)

(27.8)

187

147

144

113

70

910

Note: Based on the employee survey. Total number of observations is 1,478.Percentages in parentheses.

In terms of workforce stability, Table 8.4 presents the turnover figures for 2013
based on the entire sample. The share of workers hired in 2013 made up approximately 5
per cent of the total workforce but almost 10 of total workforce left the firms. On average,
the share of workers that left was two times the share of newly employed workers, but this
does not hold across all firm types and locations. Formal, urban and northern firms lost
twice as many employees as they hired but other firm types had the lower share of
employees leaving. While micro firms follow the average workforce stability pattern,
medium enterprises were the only firm category that has hired approximately the same
amount of workers as they have lost.
Of the workers leaving their employers approximately one half left voluntary and
around 20 per cent was fired. This is widely different situation compared to 2011 when
around 70 per cent of workers left voluntarily and only 4 per cent were fired (CIEM, DoE,
ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012). The reasons for leaving employment are consistent across
all size and location categories. Rural and informal firms had substantially higher than
average share of workers getting fired.

-186-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 8.4: Stability of Workforce
All

Micro

Small Medium Urban

Rural Formal Informal South

North

Share hired

5.3

4.1

8.2

8.9

6.0

4.8

6.6

2.2

5.6

5.1

Share left

9.7

9.5

10.6

8.7

13.6

6.8

12.3

3.1

7.4

11.5

Left voluntarily

50.7

49.8

52.9

48.1

45.9

56.5

51.0

48.4

49.7

51.7

Were fired

19.8

20.2

19.7

18.8

18.0

22.0

19.2

25.4

20.3

19.4

Retired

1.7

0.4

1.9

5.0

2.8

0.5

1.9

0.5

1.1

2.3

Illness

1.6

1.0

1.6

3.3

1.9

1.3

1.7

0.9

1.9

1.3

Died

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.9

0.3

0.6

Other reasons

23.8

25.0

22.7

23.3

29.7

16.7

24.0

22.1

25.1

22.6

(2,461) (1,763) (566)

(132)

of which

Observations

(1,062) (1,399) (1,767)

(694)

(1,059) (1,402)

Note: Unbalanced panel. Per cent of total workforce.

8.3. Education, Training, Workplace Conditions and Hiring Methods


To what extent the composition of the workforce is due to firm choice and to what
extent it is due to lack of suitable workers is worth considering. Table 8.5 reveals that 9 per
cent of all firms had difficulties recruiting workers with the appropriate skill level in 2013
and 67 per cent of these firms listed lack of workers with the required skill level as the main
reason. Compared to 2011, the share of firms with recruiting is two times lower. Recruiting
difficulties increase substantially with firm size and are higher in rural areas. Around 26 per
cent of all medium sized firms and around 6 per cent of all micro firms report difficulties
with recruiting workers with the appropriate skill level. More than 70 per cent of small,
medium sized and urban firms listed lack of skilled workers as the main reason for recruiting
difficulties. This is in line with the fact that larger and urban firms generally employ more
professional workers, as seen in Table 8.2. The results might indicate that skill levels of
workers do not match firm demand. Around 18 per cent of all firms find difficulties in
recruiting workers as a result of insufficient wage offers and around 12 per cent listed
unattractive working conditions as the main difficulty. Compared to 2011, we see a two
percentage point increase in experiencing difficulties with providing sufficiently high wages.
Since the share of well-educated workers is relatively high, as shown below in Table 8.8, it
seems that these recruiting difficulties might be due to lack of labour market information
rather than an actual lack of skilled workers. This suggests that a strengthening of
information systems would benefit both workers and firms and could help match worker
skills and job functions.

-187-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 8.5: Difficulties in Hiring Workers
Difficulties with recruiting workers with
required skills (per cent)
Yes
Did not recruit
Reason for recruitment difficulties (per cent)
Lack of skilled labour
Cannot provide sufficient wage offer
Working conditions not attractive
Other
No. of firms

All

Micro

Small

Medium Urban

Rural

9.0
56.5

5.7
66.0

15.5
34.8

25.8
22.7

8.5
56

9.7
57.2

67.1
18.5
11.7
2.7
2,461

56
24
14
6
1,763

76.1
12.5
11.4
0
566

76.5
17.6
5.9
0
132

70.9
20.4
8.7
0
1,062

63.9
16.8
14.3
5
1,399

(222)

(187)

(167)

(48)

(103)

(119)

Note: Number of firms with recruiting difficulties in parentheses. 2013 survey.

Table 8.6 shows that the most common way of recruiting was through informal
contacts, which constituted just above 60 per cent of all recruiting methods. 8A high
reliance on personal contacts in hiring workers is present across all size and location
categories of enterprises, ranging from 48 per cent for medium-sized firms to 71 per cent
for small firms. These results are consistent with findings from 2011 (not reported). Both
rural and urban firms use to a large extent informal recruiting methods and urban firms
hire more than 68 per cent of the workers by informal methods. These figures could still be
underestimating the true extent of informal hiring in the Vietnamese economy because
around one third of both rural and micro firms responded not applicable. This may come
from the fact that workers hired in these firms are mostly household members and then, by
definition, hired informally. Hiring methods can have different implications on the terms
under which wages are determined. Larsen, Rand and Torm (2011) document that workers
hired by personal contacts or other forms of informal hiring methods receive a significant
wage premium.
In Table 8.5 we see that the majority of firms indicated to have experienced some
difficulties with finding workers with adequate skills. Intuitively this might result in more
training at the workplace. However, Table 8.7 shows that around 20 per cent of all firms
provide training of new workers and only 4 per cent of all firms provide training of
existing workers. The share of firms providing training is increasing in firm size. This is
not surprising since medium sized firms reported most difficulties in recruiting skilled
labour.

Recommended by friends/relatives or other workers and personal contacts are understood as informal

recruiting methods.

-188-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 8.6: Recruitment Methods
Recruitment Methods
All

Micro

Small Medium Urban

Rural

Newspaper advertisement

6.7

3.1

13.8

25.8

10.4

Labour exchange

1.8

1.4

3.5

0.8

1.4

2.1

Recommended by friends/relatives or other workers

37

34

48.1

30.3

44.1

31.7

Recommended/allocated by local authorities

1.1

1.1

2.3

0.8

1.4

Personal contacts

23.3

24.3

21.7

15.9

23.4

23.2

Through employment service centres

2.2

0.7

3.9

15.9

3.9

Other

2.3

1.5

3.9

6.8

1.8

Not applicable

25.5

34.1

4.1

2.3

13.1

34.9

No. of firms

2,461

1,763

566

132

1,062

1,399

Note: 2013 survey

The share of firms providing training for new workers has increased sizeably
between 2011 and 2013. While in 2011 only 8 per cent firms trained new employees,
almost 20 per cent did so in 2013. The increase in the amount of training provided to
new workers increased for all firm sizes and locations. The highest change is seen in
small firms that have doubled the amount of provided training and, to a smaller extent,
medium firms that have increased their share of training for new employees by around
10 percentage points. The amount of training has increased by four times in micro and
rural firms to reach 13 and 20 per cent in 2013, respectively. The rise in the amount of
training provided for new workers might be caused by the need of better skilled workers
or because firms who hire new workers are less resource constrained. The data from the
2013 survey round also show that firms located in rural regions are now more likely to
provide training to new workers compared to urban firms. This is a noteworthy change
compared to the situation in 2011.
Table 8.7 also shows that the share of firms providing training of existing workers has
decreased between 2011 and 2013. While around 7 per cent of all firms provided training for
existing workers in 2011, the proportion decreased to 4 per cent in 2013, resembling in this
way the situation in 2009 when only 3 per cent of firms trained current workforce (CIEM,
DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012). This pattern is observed for all firm sizes and
locations. Overall, the impression is that firms are more likely to provide training to new
workers than to existing workers. This might be due to the fact that workers who have been
in the same job for some time have gathered some experience and do not need training to
fulfil their job requirements. The findings are based on the unbalanced panel but are
consistent within the balanced panel.

-189-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 8.7: Training of Workforce
All
2011

Micro

Small

Medium

Urban

Rural

2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013

Provides training for


new workers

8.3

19.5

2.4

13.2 14.9 32.2 33.8 42.4 11.0

18.8

5.8

20.0

Provides training for


existing workers

6.9

4.0

3.1

1.7

4.8

4.1

3.3

No. of firms

12.3

7.8

20.0 15.9 10.0

2,024 2,365 1,275 1,669 604

564

145

132

995 1,046 1,029 1,319

Note: All firms that did not answer were removed.

Turning to the educational level of the workforce, Table 8.8 reveals that 13 per cent of
the workers surveyed in the employee module have a university education with a notably
higher share for women. Notice that the classification of education categories has changed
compared to the previous survey rounds in that the 2013 dataset contains more categories
that enable distinguishing between vocational, college and university education. Compared
to the employee sample from 2011 (see CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012), there
has been a slight increase in the share of workers with no education. Just like in 2011, more
men than women finish secondary school and high school. They also obtain technical
education without certificate more frequently than women. Conversely, women tend to have
a higher share of degrees in professional secondary education and colleges.
Compared to the entire Vietnamese population with 6.4 per cent inhabitants with a
university degree (GSO, 2013), the share of highly educated workers in the SME sample is
much higher. The sample also does not follow the general population trend when it comes to
the difference between male and female education level. While Vietnamese men on average
have higher share of university degrees than women (GSO, 2013), the surveyed SMEs tend
to employ more highly educated women than men. Since the sample consists of workers
hired in private SMEs this observation may also not be representative of the general level of
education among the Vietnamese manufacturing firms. It is most likely that well educated
men are underrepresented in the sample because they are hired in other places (state-owned
enterprises or others). In contrary, well educated women could be overrepresented since they
are more likely to be excluded from high positions in state owned companies and, therefore,
find employment in privately owned firms. Any inferences regarding educational attainment
for workers should, therefore, be drawn bearing this in mind.

-190-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 8.8: Education Attainment
Highest level of education
None
Primary school
Secondary school
High school
Technical level without certificate
Vocational elementary
Vocational secondary
Professional secondary
Vocational college
College
University and higher
Observations

Women
7
(1.1)
30
(4.6)
84
(12.8)
172
(26.3)
55
(8.4)
17
(2.6)
30
(4.6)
67
(10.2)
8
(1.2)
65
(9.9)
119
(18.2)
654

Men
10
(1.1)
41
(4.5)
167
(18.2)
287
(31.3)
173
(18.9)
26
(2.8)
53
(5.8)
26
(2.8)
23
(2.5)
23
(2.5)
88
(9.6)
917

Total
17
(1.1)
71
(4.5)
251
(16.0)
459
(29.2)
228
(14.5)
43
(2.7)
83
(5.3)
93
(5.9)
31
(2.0)
88
(5.6)
207
(13.2)
1,571

Note: Employee survey. Percentages in parentheses.

8.4. Trade Unions


Under the provisions of the Law on Trade Unions, labour force in Vietnam enters local
trade unions voluntarily and contributes to the union a fee of around one per cent of monthly
salary. The fee can be paid individually by workers or by the firm on behalf of the workers,
in which case the amount is automatically deducted from salary of workers who are union
members. To align this years report with previous SME reports, we focus on firms that are
classified as small or medium-sized because they employ more than 10 employees. This
means that all firms with less than 10 workers have been excluded from the sample that is
considered in Table 8.9. Based on the unbalanced panel, 30 per cent of all firms had a local
trade union in 2013. This is an increase of four percentage points compared to 2011 when 26
per cent of firms had a union. The occurrence of local trade unions varies greatly by firm
size, from 20 per cent in small firms to 76 per cent in medium-sized firms. The presence of
trade unions has increased in both small and medium-sized firms from 2011. We see more
trade unions in rural and urban regions alike, with the number of unions increasing more in
rural areas but still not at a rate enough to reach the level observed in urban firms. The trend
of increasing presence of trade unions is also observed along the north-south divide, where
firms in the south tend to have a higher proportion of trade unions. It is also visible from the

-191-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


data that firms headed by a male owner or manager are less likely to have a local level trade
union compared to female owned firms. The share of female-headed firms with local level
trade unions has increased by seven percentage points between 2011 and 2013, while the
increase for male-headed firms was three times smaller. Results are maintained when the
balanced panel is used.
Table 8.9: Share of Firms Having a Local Trade Union and Its Members
Unbalanced Panel
Share of firms

Balanced Panel

Share of workers

Share of firms

Share of workers

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

2011

2013

All

26.0

30.8

77.5

79.8

25.5

30.1

77.5

80.3

Small

16.3

20.3

76.5

75.7

15.2

19.8

74.8

75.0

Medium

66.9

75.8

77.4

81.1

67.8

66.9

78.9

83.0

Urban

34.0

39.3

75.8

79.8

33.5

38.4

75.7

79.8

Rural

13.1

17.2

84.6

79.9

13.7

16.8

83.9

82.1

South

33.9

36.9

72.6

78.1

33.0

36.8

72.7

77.4

North

19.5

25.3

84.6

82.0

19.1

23.9

84.8

84.4

Male owner

21.3

23.1

82.0

81.5

21.2

23.3

82.1

81.7

Female owner

32.1

39.2

73.7

78.8

31.3

37.8

73.2

79.4

Observations

757

698

204

236

615

558

163

186

Note: The results are based on a sample without micro firms.

When unions do exist the workforce participation is generally quite high with around
80 per cent of workers being members in 2013. As traditionally expected, the average share
of workers being members of a trade union is higher in firms located in the north compared
to firms located in the south. Rural and urban firms have the same share of workers as trade
union members. The share of workers in trade unions was higher in male-owned firms in
both years. Compared to 2011, we see an increase in participation of workers in local trade
unions. The increase in participation in local level trade unions is expected since it could
lead to better working conditions, higher wages and social benefit insurance. However, this
average increase obscures changes at the firm size and location level. While the workforce
participation in trade unions increased in urban firms, it has decreased in urban enterprises.
Similarly, the share of workers in trade unions increased in the south but decreased in the
north. Female-owned firms were prone to increasing the trade union participation of
workers, while male owners saw a slight decline in the proportion of workers who are union
members. There are no major differences in the results between unbalanced and balanced
panel except for the comparison of trade union membership by firm size. While the
membership rose in medium firms, it declined in small firms based on the unbalanced panel
data. However, the balanced panel data shows a very small increase in union membership
for small firms.

-192-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


The general results from Table 8.9 showed the increase in the share of trade union
membership across surveyed firms. Now we examine the changes more closely and compare
the share of firms who became unionised and the share of firms who became de-unionised.
Table 8.10 reveals that only 1.7 per cent of firms in the balanced panel have shifted from
having a local level trade union in 2011 to not having one in 2013. In contrast to this, 5.2 per
cent of firms shifted from not having a local level trade union in 2011 to having one in 2013.
This trend of increased formation of unions is observed across all firm size and location
categories. Applied to the case of small firms, where the difference in the result between
unbalanced and balanced panel data was high, we conclude that small firms have
experienced a net increase in the union membership with the ration of unionisation to deunionisation being 2.6.
Table 8.10: Local Trade Unions Dynamics (per cent)
All

Small

Medium

Urban

Rural

South

North

De-unionised firms

1.7

1.8

1.0

1.0

2.9

2.6

0.8

Unionised firms

5.2

4.7

7.1

4.2

6.9

5.7

4.7

Number of firms

482

384

98

307

175

229

253

Note: Balanced panel. Since micro firms are excluded, the number of observations is 1,455 firms.

Around 35 per cent of the workers in the employee sample answered that the most
important benefit of being a member of a trade union was securing of social benefits.
Closely following with 27 per cent is improved job security as the main benefit. Around 10
per cent of workers stated that union membership is attractive because it results in improved
safety at the workplace and another 10 per cent see union membership as a way to obtaining
more stable and better wages. Since more than 45 per cent of workers in the employee
sample replied that the most important benefit from being a trade union member was
securing of social benefits it seems likely that union membership is positively associated
with receiving social benefits.
There is a considerable difference between the 2011 and 2013 surveys in terms of who
is chairing the local trade union. Figure 8.2 shows that around 34 per cent of the chairmen of
local trade unions are managers. The same was observed in 2011. Slightly higher share, 37
per cent of unions is chaired by senior workers. This is where we see the highest difference
compared to 2011 when 44 per cent of the trade unions were chaired by senior workers.
Also, a higher share of local trade unions is chaired by human resource managers (head of
personnel section) in 2013 than in 2011. The share rose from 12 per cent in 2011 to 16 per
cent in 2013. These changes signal negative developments in local trade union management,
as the overall trend compared to 2011 has been that of increasing dominance of managerial
staff and not workers in chairing local trade unions. In this way, there is a doubt about the
efficiency of local trade unions in defending labour rights and ensuring social benefits, job
security and safety in the workplace.

-193-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 8.2: Trade Union Chairman
5,49 5,06
2,95
Owner of the enterprise
Relative to the owner

33,76

Senior worker

36,71

Head of personnel section


Managerial staff (non-owner)
Other
16,03

8.5. Wage Setting, Social Benefits and Contracts


In this section, we analyse wage levels for the workers surveyed in the employee sample
in 2013. The average nominal monthly wage was 4.7 million VND. The average nominal
wage for men was 4,970 thousand VND and an average wage for women amounted to 4,734
thousand VND. 9 This wage gap is persistent across all job functions, as shown in Figure 8.3.
The wage difference in favour of men is particularly high among sales personnel and
professional workers. Women in production and service sectors tend to earn the least. Coupled
with a slight increase in the female labour share, this may mean that SMEs employ more
female workers to decrease the total wage bill. From Figure 8.2 it seems that a positive wage
premium exists for all occupation categories compared to production and service workers.
Figure 8.3: Average Monthly Wage in 2013 (in 1,000 VND)
All

Women

Men

6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
Manager

Professional

Office

Sales

Service

Production

Note: Observations above the 99 % per centile have been removed to take account of outliers. Data is from the
employee module for 2013.
9

Observations above the 99 % per centile have been removed to take account of outliers.

-194-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 8.4 shows the average real monthly wage in 2011 and 2013 grouped by
occupation. The average real monthly wage was 1,535 thousand VND in 2013 and 1,437
thousand VND in 2011. Hence, the real wage has increased by almost 7 per cent during the
considered two-year period. This means that the real wage on average has increased by
around 3per cent per annum between 2011 and 2013. Figure 8.3 also indicates that the real
wage increase occurred across all occupation categories.
Figure 8.4: Average Monthly Real Wage by Occupation (in 1,000 VND)
2011

2013

2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
500
0
Manager Professional

Office

Sales

Service

Production

All

Note: Monthly real wage has been deflated using IMF CPI (2005=100).

A simple wage regression based on both employee and firm characteristics with the
traditional wage determinants is presented in Table 8.11. Column 1 in the table shows a
significantly positive wage premium for all occupation categories as compared to production
workers. This is in accordance with the findings of Larsen, Rand and Torm (2011). Column
2 in Table 8.11 that includes specific firm control variables shows the premium for
managers and professionals only. Sales personnel, service and office workers are not doing
significantly better than production workers in the second estimation. This confirms the
findings presented in Figure 8.2. The indicators measuring the education level High school
and above and Technical worker are significant in both specifications. Since secondary
education and below is the reference category, the positive coefficient on the education
variables indicates that educational level is positively correlated with the wage level. This is
in accordance with the findings of Hering & Poncet(2010).
Table 8.11 also reveals that on the job training is positively associated with the wage
level. However, this might be because firms that provide on the job training also are more
likely to provide higher wages. It is usual to find that the age of the worker is a significant
determinant of the wage level but our estimation does not show a significant relationship.
However, number of years spent working for the firm is a significantly positive determinant
of the wage level. As expected, data show the negative relationship between the squared
number of years spent working for the firm and wage, illustrating that wages peak in middle
age and decline shortly after. The results do not show that wages increase with additional

-195-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


training, because the association between wage and training is statistically insignificant.
Interestingly, being recruited by informal methods (by personal contacts or recommendations
from friends and relatives) seems to increase wages. This variable is significant only in the
second specification shown in column (2). Finally, the results confirm the existence of a
significant gender wage gap and confirm the findings in Figure 8.2. Furthermore, gender
wage gaps are common particular in developing countries and the finding corresponds to
numerous empirical studies (Vu, 2012; Hering & Poncet, 2010; Liu, 2004).
In column 2, a number of firm specific variables are included, most of which appear to
be significant wage determinants. Firm size has a significant and positive association with
wages, which is in line with the general finding that earnings tend to be positively related to
firm size (Soderbom et al., 2005). Male owners seem be statistically significantly and
negatively related to the wage level. In addition, it the share of women in the workforce is
negatively associated with the wage level. Also, it seems that formality of firms is
negatively related to the wage level, but the variable is not statistically significant.
Table 8.11: Wage Determinants
Dependent variable: ln(real wage)
Gender of Worker (male=1)
Age of Worker
Age squared/100
Worker's number of years in firm
Years in firm squared/100
Manager
Professional
Sales
Service/Office
High school and above (yes=1)
Technical worker (yes=1)
On-the-job training (yes=1)
Recruited by informal methods (yes=1)
Tax code (yes=1)
Gender of owner (male=1)
Firm size (log)
Share of total workforce which are women
Exporting
R-squared
Number of observations
Sector dummies
Legal structure dummies
Province dummies

(1)
0.158***
-0.015
0.011
0.014**
-0.001**
0.512***
0.403***
0.326***
0.211***
0.331***
0.417***
0.030
-0.049

0.080
1,336
No
No
No

(2)
(2.88)
(-0.94)
(0.54)
(2.20)
(-2.17)
(6.36)
(5.92)
(4.39)
(3.09)
(3.77)
(4.57)
(0.47)
(-0.98)

0.017
-0.017
0.017
0.013**
-0.001**
0.340***
0.191***
0.091
0.020
0.174**
0.242***
-0.008
0.108**
-0.219
-0.136***
0.129***
-0.007***
0.165**
0.230
1,336
Yes
Yes
Yes

(0.36)
(-1.10)
(0.85)
(2.06)
(-2.04)
(4.83)
(3.16)
(1.35)
(0.31)
(2.00)
(2.68)
(-0.12)
(2.01)
(-1.52)
(-2.93)
(5.45)
(-4.64)
(2.31)

Note: Dependent variable: Log real wage. Wages deflated using IMF CPI (2005=100). Estimation based on
monthly wage. Only 1,295 workers reported months as the wage time unit. OLS estimates. For education and
occupation, the reference categories are secondary education and below and production worker, respectively. *,
** and *** denote significance at a 10 %, 5 %, and 1 % level, respectively. Observations above the 99 % per
centile have been removed. t-statistics based on robust standard errors are reported in parentheses.

-196-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Finally, an indicator representing exporting firms is included in the regression. The
result is a statistically significant positive relationship between export and wages. This is in
line with previous studies, which found that firms which are exporting are likely to provide a
higher wage level to their workers (Bernard et al., 1995). This finding is in contrast to Vu
(2012) who based on the data from Vietnamese SMEs finds that the expected exporter wage
premium disappears when both firm and worker characteristics are added to the regression.
In terms of wage setting basis, Table 8.12 shows that the most common way to set the
wages is through individual negotiations. Paying capacity of the enterprise and wage rates in
other non-state enterprises constitute important wage determinants as well. Compared to
2011, slightly more firms are setting wages through individual negotiations (an increase
from 45 per cent in 2011 to 47 per cent in 2011). Similarly, more firms are setting wages
according to the wage rates in local firms - the proportion increased from 18 per cent in
2011 to 19 per cent in 2013. In 2013, firms are less guided by their paying capacity when
setting wages: the proportion of firms setting wags based on the rates in other non-state
enterprises declined from 27 per cent in 2011 to 25 per cent in 2013.This pattern is
consistent across all size and location categories.
Table 8.12: Wage Setting Basis (per cent)
All

Micro Small Medium Urban Rural South North

Wage rates in other local non-state


enterprises

19.4

17.8

21.0

27.3

19.4

19.4

15.7

23.0

Wage rates in local state enterprises

1.8

1.4

2.5

3.0

1.7

1.9

2.0

1.6

Set by authorities

4.4

3.0

6.4

9.8

6.8

1.9

5.8

3.2

Wage rates for employment in


agriculture

1.0

1.1

1.1

0.0

0.7

1.4

1.0

1.1

Individual negotiations

47.1

53.0

38.9

28.0

41.7

52.8

44.7

49.5

Paying capacity of the enterprise

25.2

22.5

29.5

31.8

29.0

21.3

30.4

20.3

Other

0.9

1.1

0.7

0.0

0.7

1.2

0.5

1.3

1,918

1,220

566

132

981

937

938

980

Number of firms
Note: 2013 survey.

Compared to 2011, the share of firms providing social benefits decreased by one
percentage point: while around 57 per cent of firms provided social benefits in 2011,
around 56 per cent reported doing so in 2013. Table 8.13 analyses the types of social
benefits paid to workers. The most commonly provided benefit is unpaid maternity leave,
which is provided by 52 per cent of all firms. The second most commonly provided benefit
is sick leave, which is followed closely by survival benefits and compensations for
accidents or professional illness. Vietnamese SMEs are least likely to provide retirement
lump-sum payments.

-197-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 8.13: Social Benefits (per cent)
All

Micro

Small

Medium

Urban

Rural

South North

Social insurance contribution

25.9

7.7

62.0

98.5

39.7

14.8

33.7

19.7

Health insurance contribution

26.0

7.8

61.8

99.2

39.1

15.5

34.2

19.5

Unemployment insurance

20.8

4.9

50.0

93.9

33.8

10.3

26.8

16.0

Compensates directly for


accidents or professional illness

27.4

13.5

54.8

84.1

44.5

13.7

36.9

19.9

Sick leave

30.6

14.9

60.4

91.7

47.3

16.8

41.9

21.5

Paid maternity leave

26.4

9.0

58.4

93.9

41.3

14.0

34.8

19.6

Unpaid maternity leave

51.9

38.8

77.2

98.5

72.1

35.2

69.5

37.6

Annual leave with pay

27.0

12.5

53.5

87.1

43.9

13.0

40.5

16.0

Retirement lump-sum

17.5

4.6

39.8

76.3

30.7

6.6

23.9

12.4

Survival benefits

29.3

15.3

53.8

92.4

46.4

15.2

40.6

20.2

Note: The share of observations with missing information is quite common for these questions. The firms with
missing information have been omitted in each category. 2013 survey.

Looking at the distribution social benefits by firm size, it is obvious that the rate of
payments increases with firm size. Medium firms pay all types of benefits at a very high
rate, greatly surpassing the average figures. There is a large increase in the rate of payments
when moving from micro to small firms, which, just as micro firms, prefer benefits in terms
of unpaid maternity leave. Further on, Table 8.13 shows that rural firms are less likely to pay
social benefits than urban firms. The same applies to firms located in the north. This
corresponds well with the observations in Table 8.9, which revealed that firms in the south
tend to have more local level trade unions compared to firms in the north.
Payments of social insurance, health insurance and unemployment contributions have
increased by around four percentage points compared to 2011. The share of firms paying for
sick leave increased by three percentage points in 2013 compared to 2011. On the other
hand, the share of firms compensating for accidents or professional illness has decreased
from 35 per cent in 2011 to 27 per cent in 2013. Similarly, the retirement lump sum
payments have decreased by five percentage points from 2011 to 2013. The share of firms
offering unpaid maternity leave has decreased from 57 per cent in 2011 to 52 per cent in
2013, but the share of paid maternity leaves has remained the same. Based on the presented
changes in social benefit payments among firms that involve increase in some types of
payments and decrease in other types, it appears that there have been only slight
improvements in working conditions in SMEs in Vietnam compared to 2011.

-198-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 8.5: Social Benefits, by Gender of Owner or Manager (per cent)
Female owner

Male owner

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Note: 2013 survey. Firms with missing observations have been excluded.

The prevalence of social benefits also varies with gender of the firm owner or
manager. Figure 8.5 shows that female owners or managers are more inclined to provide all
kinds of social benefits compared to their male counterparts. These findings are in
accordance with the findings of Rand and Tarp (2011) who conclude that women-owned
SMEs are more likely than men-owned firms to provide employees with fridge benefits such
as, for example, annual leave and health insurance.
Next, we look at the prevalence of formal contracts among the surveyed Vietnamese
SMEs. Figure 8.6 shows that the average share of regular full time workers with formal
written contracts was on average 27 per cent in 2013. The average share of workers with
formal written contracts differs greatly across firm size and location. While almost 91 per
cent of the workers in medium-sized firms have formal written contracts, only 11 per cent of
workers in micro firms can say the same. The use of formal contracts is more common in
urban firms: 40 per cent of urban firms sign contracts with their workers, while only 17 per
cent of rural firms decide to do the same.
Figure 8.6: Formal Contracts, by Gender of Owner or Manager
Female

Male

All

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
All

Micro

Small

Medium

Urban

Rural

South

Note: 2013 survey. Firms with missing observations have been excluded.

-199-

North

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


The share of firms with contracts in higher in the south with 33 per cent of firms than
in the north with merely 23 per cent. Female owners or managers generally have a more
formalised workforce and provide contracts to 35 per cent of their workers. This is a
considerable larger share than that of male owners or managers, where contracts are signed
only in 20 per cent of cases. Given that contracts are important in ensuring social benefits
these findings correspond well with the results that female owners and managers are more
likely to provide social benefits. This result is important for the interpretation of negative
correlation between male firm ownership and worker wages shown in Table 8.11.
Combining these pieces of information allows concluding that male firm owners or
managers provide comparably inferior work conditions than their female counterparts by
rarely offering contracts and social benefits and offering lower wages.
Figure 8.5 showed that only a part of the workforce is provided with formal written
contracts. Now we look at the duration of contracts among the SMEs in Vietnam. Table
8.14 reveals that, on average, more than 75 per cent of formal written contracts have
duration longer than 12 months and that 42 per cent of these contracts have indefinite term.
Micro and small firms offer infinite term contracts in majority of cases, while medium firms
prefer one to three-years contracts. Location-wise, we see that compared to urban firm,
rural firms tend to offer more indefinite term contracts and fewer contracts that last less
than a year.
The share of indefinite term contracts has increased from 37 per cent in 2011 to 42 per
cent in 2013. On the contrary, the share of contracts that are valid up to three years has
declined in the same period. Firms in all size categories and locations tended to offer more
permanent contracts in 2013 than in 2011.
Table 8.14: Duration of Formal Contracts (per cent of workers)
All

Micro

Small

Medium

Urban

Rural

Indefinite term contract

42.3

50.3

41.2

35.1

37.6

44.7

Valid between 12 and 36 months

34.0

30.1

33.8

39.8

30.8

35.7

Valid between 3 and 12 months

19.7

13.9

22.0

20.6

26.9

16.0

Valid less than 3 months

4.0

5.8

3.0

4.5

4.8

3.6

No. of firms

563

143

312

108

374

189

Note: 2013 survey. The figures give the share of workers with contract with the specific duration

-200-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

9. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
According to the 2014 Environmental Performance Index, Vietnams ability to protect
environment ranks at the bottom of Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
countries and places 136 out of 178 analysed countries (EPI, 2014). The Environmental
Performance Index benchmarks a nations capacity to protect human health from
environmental harm, as well as the capacity to protect its ecosystem and natural resources,
focusing among others on air quality, climate change, water resources, agriculture, fisheries,
forests, biodiversity and habitat. Responsible environmental management is an important
part of sustainable development that is increasingly seen not only as a business
responsibility but also as a business opportunity (OECD, 2005). With this in mind, this
chapter considers the environmental performance of SMEs included in this study. This still
remains a relatively new and unexplored area in Vietnam. Legislation guiding and enforcing
environmental conditions and obligations on SMEs has been introduced only recently, and
as such, knowledge of the relevant laws and their corresponding responsibilities is still
forming. Data collection and analytical research on this topic started with the SME survey
conducted in 2007, so a part of this report will take note of what has happened since then.
This chapter covers the issues surrounding the Environmental Standards Certificate
(ESC). The present legal framework governing SMEs and their interaction with the
environment in Vietnam is contained in three core legal documents: (i) the Law on
Environmental Protection from 2005; (ii) Decree 80/2006 guiding the implementation of the
above law and (iii) Decree 29/2011 detailing and guiding the implementation of a number of
articles of the Law on Environment Protection. According to these documents, enterprises
conducting certain specified (polluting) activities, regardless of the legal status of the
enterprise, must prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report. The EIA report
should be appraised by a committee and approved by the relevant state authorities (MONRE
or the Provincial Peoples Committee depending on the specific type of project). Businesses
are awarded an ESC if they successfully satisfy the pollution control measures stated in the
EIA report. Once they are awarded an ESC, they can start/continue their business
operations. Only enterprises operating in certain sectors must follow this procedure, and
Decree 29/2011 specifies 144 types of activities that must comply with the above legal
framework. If an enterprise operates in a sector not included in this list, it is not legally
obliged to obtain an EIA and ESC, though they are still required to sign an environmental
protection commitment letter. Based on the activities eligible for EIA listed in the Decree
29/2011, we are excluding from the analysis enterprises registered as service providers and
enterprises from the recycling sector (ISIC 37).
As shown in Table 9.1, just 16.2 per cent of enterprises report having an ESC in 2013.
This represents an almost negligible rise relative to 2011: the number of ESCs in 2011 and
2013 is different by only 0.2 percentage points, leading us to conclude that the adherence to
environmental legislation has stayed constant in the past two years. Compared to 2007 when
9 per cent of interviewed SMEs had ESC and to 2009 when 13 per cent of SMEs in our

-201-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


sample has ESC, the situation in 2013 is indicative of a slowdown in the rate of
environmental certification. The number of ESCs remains very low even if some enterprises
in our sample operate in sectors not required to possess an ESC.
There are significant differences in certification rate between provinces. HCMC has
the highest proportion of enterprises with an ESC (27.7 per cent). This was also the province
with a very high rate of increase in environmental certification compared to 2011. Long An
has the second highest number of enterprises with ESC (23.5 per cent). It is closely followed
by Ha Noi with 22.3 per cent of SMEs having ESC and Hai Phong with 18.3 per cent of
certified firms. All other provinces have lower prevalence of ESCs and a declining trend in
certification. Number of certificates has declined the most in Quang Nam, where the number
of certificates in 2011 is by around 45 per cent lower than in 2011.
Table 9.1: Environmental Standards Certificate by Province,
Legal Structure and Size (per cent)

All
Province

Legal

Size

Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
HCMC
Long An
Household establishment
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/ Collective/
Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company
Micro
Small
Medium

Observations

Enterprise has
EnvironmentalCertificate
2011
2013
Both years
16.0
16.2
16.1
19.8
22.3
21.1
10.8
7.2
9.0
9.4
6.8
8.1
20.2
18.3
19.3
13.9
8.4
11.2
14.8
8.1
11.4
6.4
18.2
12.1
11.8
7.8
9.8
21.2
27.7
24.5
22.1
23.5
22.8
9.1
6.2
7.6
23.8
30.1
27.0
35.4
28.3
36.3
9.2
25.2
54.5
2,413

33.3
33.6
41.7
7.6
33.3
58.1
2,423

34.5
31.0
39.2
8.4
29.0
56.2
4,836

The vast majority of our sample comprises household enterprises, and these firms
remain the least likely to possess an ESC, because enforcement of environmental regulations
has yet to target to the same extent smaller enterprises. Moreover, compared to 2011, the
share of household-owned firms with an ESC has declined by 30 per cent. Just like in
previous surveys, joint stock companies tend to have the highest proportion of enterprises

-202-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


with an ESC and a rising trend in certification compared to 2011. Other legal ownership
forms are similar in keeping the share of certified firms at around 30 per cent. While the rate
of certification is increasing for private firms and limited liability companies, a small decline
in certification is observed for partnerships.
Splitting the sample by size of firm shows a clear pattern, with larger firms more likely
to hold an ESC than smaller firms. It is noteworthy that around 60 per cent of medium-sized
firms in our sample now have an ESC. Larger firms have also increased the proportion of
certificates since 2011, while the smaller firms saw a decline in certification. As shown in
Table 9.2, restricting the sample to only household enterprises, it is clear that those that are
formally registered with the (district) authorities exhibit a greater likelihood to own an ESC.
Table 9.2: Environmental Standards Certificate among
Household Enterprises by Formality

Formal
Informal
Total

Enterprise has Environmental Certificate


No
Yes
Total
775
87
854
(89.8)
(10.2)
(100.0)
681
8
689
(98.8)
(1.2)
(100.0)
1,448
95
1,543
(93.8)
(6.2)
(100.0)

Note: Definition of a formal firm: Firm has an ECN or a BRC and a tax
code. Percentages in parentheses.

Table 9.3 disaggregates firms owning an ESC by sector of operation (at the two-digit
ISIC level). On average, figures show that the rate of environmental certification among the
SMEs has kept at a constant level between 2011 and 2013. Despite the constant average
number of certified enterprises, there have been important changes in obtaining ESCs within
sectors. The highest prevalence of ESCs is observed among the enterprises in chemical
(ISIC 24), rubber (ISIC 25) and paper (ISIC 21) sectors, with 46.2 per cent, 35.9 per cent
and 23.6 per cent of certified enterprises respectively. At the same time, these sectors have
experienced a decline in the rate of obtaining ESCs compared to 2011. Several sectors have
a prevalence of ESCs lower than 10 per cent: wood (ISIC 20), publishing (ISIC 22)
fabricated metal products (ISIC 28) and furniture (ISIC 36). However, a word of caution is
in order here. As outlined above, whether or not a firm is required to possess an ESC
depends on the sector in which it operates. Therefore, care should be taken when
interpreting these results as a signal of better compliance with environmental regulations.
Indeed, the sectors with a high prevalence of ESCs are likely to be sectors that require
enterprises to possess an ESC. This is illustrated in Figure 9.1, which shows that more than
60 per cent of enterprises pursue environmental certification because of government
requirements. In that regard, Vietnamese SMEs resemble other countries, where legitimation
appears as a prominent motive for environmental responsiveness (Gadenne et al., 2009).

-203-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 9.3: Environmental Standards Certificate by Sector
Enterprise has Environmental Certificate
2011
2013
ISIC
code
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2932
34
35
36

Sector

Yes

(%)

No

(%)

Total Yes

Food products and


167 (22.8) 567 (77.2) 734
beverages
Textiles
11 (10.6) 93 (89.4) 104
Wearing apparel etc.
9
(7.4) 112 (92.6) 121
Tanning and dressing
4
(8.5) 43 (91.5) 47
leather
Wood and wood products 8
(3.2) 240 (96.8) 248
Paper and paper products 18 (26.9) 49 (73.1) 67
Publishing, printing etc.
8 (13.6) 51 (86.4) 59
Refined petroleum etc.
1 (14.3) 6 (85.7)
7
Chemical products etc.
20 (51.3) 19 (48.7) 39
Rubber and plastic
41 (36.0) 73 (64.0) 114
products
Non-metallic mineral
28 (24.6) 86 (75.4) 114
products
Basic metals
9 (25.7) 26 (74.3) 35
Fabricated metal products 27 (6.3) 404 (93.7) 431
Machinery (office +
15 (20.3) 59 (79.7) 74
electrical)
Motor vehicles etc.
3 (17.6) 14 (82.4) 17
Transport equipment
3 (37.5) 5 (62.5)
8
Furniture etc.
13 (6.7) 181 (93.3) 194
Total
385 (16.0) 2,028 (84.0) 2,413

(%)

No

(%)

Total

142 (18.8)

613

(81.2)

755

12
20

(12.5)
(17.4)

84
95

(87.5)
(82.6)

96
115

(10.0)

45

(90.0)

50

15
17
5
2
24

(6.1)
(23.6)
(7.8)
(25.0)
(46.2)

231
55
59
6
28

(93.9)
(76.4)
(92.2)
(75.0)
(53.8)

246
72
64
8
52

47

(35.9)

84

(64.1)

131

26

(25.5)

76

(74.5)

102

4
35

(14.8)
(8.3)

23
386

(85.2)
(91.7)

27
421

15

(23.1)

50

(76.9)

65

3 (25.0)
9
3 (33.3)
6
17 (8.6) 181
392 (16.2) 2,031

(75.0) 12
(66.7)
9
(91.4) 198
(83.8) 2,423

Note: Based on a panel data. 33 firms from the service sector were excluded in 2013. Percentages in parentheses.

Low prevalence of environmental certification could be caused by limited knowledge


about official legal requirements, so we turn to exploring the level of knowledge about
environmental regulation among the SMEs. Figure 9.1 shows how SMEs see their knowledge
about the Environmental Law. Overall, SMEs appear to be unaware of the key areas of
environmental legislation that affect their business. A vast majority (around 80 per cent) either
does not have knowledge about the Environmental Law or considers their knowledge poor.
Only one fifth of the respondents replied that their knowledge is good or average. There is a
slight decrease in the proportion of SMEs who find that their knowledge of Environmental
Law is good or average in 2013 compared to 2011. Compared to 2007 and 2009, the trend of
limited knowledge about environmental regulation has kept at approximately same level
(CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). These numbers could partly reflect the fact that ESC is not
required in all sectors, but they can also indicate very low spread of information about
environmental regulation. It appears that a lot of work needs to be done in terms of increasing
the awareness about environmental regulation among the SMEs, which could subsequently
improve the overall environmental performance of Vietnam. Findings in previous research

-204-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


have shown that if more SME owners/managers are made aware of the benefits associated
with environmental practices (for example through government campaigns and promotional
advertising), they are much more inclined to engage in environment-friendly practices
(Gadenne et al., 2009).
Figure 9.1: Knowledge about Environmental Law (per cent)
2011

2013

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Good

Average

Poor

No knowledge/Not of my
interest

Further on, Figure 9.2 shows that reasons for obtaining an ESC have remained roughly
unchanged compared to 2011. We see a slight increase in the need to improve working
conditions, but a large decline in certification in order to attract more customers. This
finding may point to low recognition of the ESCs in the market, where the customers do not
value highly a better environmental stewardship guaranteed by the certificate. Finding that
commercial considerations do not motivate owners of SMEs to obtain ESC is in contrast to
most other countries where the evidence routinely points to commercial pressures as main
drivers of environmental certification (Psomas et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2007; Simpson et al.,
2004; Porter & Linde, 1995). Compared to 2011, there is a small decline in the share of
enterprises that have obtained an ESC for personal reasons, that is, their beliefs in the
obligation to protect the environment. As in 2011, thinking about potential cost reduction
when deciding to obtain an ESC was not prominent in this survey round. In this regard,
Vietnamese SMEs resemble SMEs in other countries, where owners/managers have little
awareness that the cost reductions may result from environmental-friendly practices
(Gadenne et al., 2009).
As shown, the SMEs are not high users of ESCs, so we now turn to exploring what
difficulties are ahead of enterprises when attempting to fulfil the requirements imposed by
the environmental regulation. What are the primary perceived constraints and obstacles
facing those enterprises that have obtained an ESC? Table 9.4 details enterprise responses
regarding difficulty and cost of compliance. The sample is split between those enterprises
with and those without an ESC, shown in panels (a) and (b), respectively.

-205-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 9.2: Reason to Get an Environmental Standards Certificate (per cent)
60

Required by officials/law

64
16

Improve working conditions for labour

20
10

To attract or required by customers

5
9

Personal reasons/we have to protect the

It is cost reducing (in the longer run)

2
2

Other

2
2

2013

10

20

30

40

50

2011

60

70

Note: Personal reasons include the belief that we need to protect the environment. Unbalanced panel.

As was the case two years ago, fire and air quality requirements represent the most
difficult and costly condition to meet. Substantially less difficult and costly requirements are
heat, water and waste disposal. Over the observed two-year period, compliance with fire
requirements became more difficult for with an ESC, while compliance with requirements
for management of air quality, water and waste disposal became easier. There is some
difference between difficulties and costs of specific requirements of environmental
regulation. For example, heat requirements are experienced as more difficult in 2013 than in
2011, but complying with these requirements became less costly. Waste disposal and water
pollution requirements are thought of as less difficult, but complying with them became
more costly in 2013.
In terms of perceived difficulties and costs expressed by enterprises that do not have
ESCs, air quality seems to be the most challenging requirement. It is closely followed by fire
and heat requirements. Comparing the perceived and actual difficulties and costs related to
ESC compliance, it is visible that perceived and actual compliance parameters match closely
when it comes to costs, but they depart notably when it comes to difficulties. To illustrate,
note how the requirements about air quality, heat and noise management are perceived to be
more difficult than they actually are according to the compliant enterprises with ESCs. This
seems to be indicative of non-compliant firms slightly overestimating the difficulty
associated with compliance in these domains. The opposite is seen in the case of fire
regulations, where enterprises without an ESC appear to be underestimating the demands
associated with complying with environmentally responsible fire management. Fire
requirements are perceived to be difficult by 26.4 per cent of firms who are non-certified,
but experienced as difficult by 28.7 certified firms.

-206-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 9.4: Difficulty and Cost of Environment Standards Certificate Compliance
Most difficult (%)
Requirement

2011

2013

Most costly (%)


All

2011

2013

All

Panel (a) Enterprises with the ESC


Air quality

28.4

26.8

27.6

46.0

32.3

38.8

Fire

23.5

33.4

28.7

20.1

27.5

24.0

Heat

10.4

12.3

11.4

14.2

11.1

12.6

Lighting

1.7

2.8

2.3

1.0

3.2

2.2

Noise

7.3

8.2

7.8

5.2

6.7

6.0

Waste disposal

13.2

6.0

9.4

4.5

7.9

6.3

Water pollution

14.2

9.5

11.7

8.0

10.8

9.4

Soil degradation/pollution

1.4

0.6

1.0

1.0

0.6

0.8

Total number

289

323

612

289

322

611

Panel (b) Enterprises without the ESC


Air quality

33.2

27.2

30.1

45.6

31.6

38.3

Fire

26.7

26.4

26.6

22.1

25.7

24.0

Heat

12.5

18.6

15.7

14.1

15.9

15.1

Lighting

2.4

2.3

2.3

1.3

2.0

1.7

Noise

14.3

16.5

15.4

6.6

14.4

10.7

Waste disposal

3.9

3.3

3.6

4.3

3.9

4.1

Water pollution

6.2

4.9

5.5

4.7

5.4

5.1

Soil degradation/pollution

0.8

0.8

0.8

1.3

1.1

1.2

1,284

1,436

2,720

1,284

1,417

2,701

Total number

To measure the ease of obtaining an ESC, we consider how many days it takes to
obtain the document. The average time was around 19.5 days in 2013 and 18 days in 2011.
Compared to the time needed to obtain other legal documents necessary for doing business,
such as Business Registration Certification of Technology Transfer Certificate, which take
46 and 20 days respectively, obtaining an ESC represents a fairly faster process. However,
compared to other legal documents, such as Social Insurance Registration Certificate,
Investment Certificate or Fire Prevention Certificate that take around 15 days to get,
obtaining an ESC takes somewhat longer.
As Figure 9.3 shows, enterprises mostly focus on fulfilling the requirements for
environmentally responsible fire management. Fire management took most effort in both
2011 and 2013, with 33 and 35 per cent of enterprises with ESC respectively, reporting to
have been dedicated to fulfilling this requirement. Lighting and heat are treated by
approximately a quarter of surveyed enterprises with an ESC. We observe a substantially
higher effort in treating lighting and heat requirements in 2013 compared to 2011. The only
area with lower level of activity than in 2011 is air quality management.

-207-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 9.3: Which Environmental Factors Enterprises Treat? (per cent)
Fire
Lighting
Heat
Waste disposal
Water pollution
Air quality
Noise
Soil degradation/pollution

2013
0

10

15

20

25

2011

30

35

40

In the final part of this section, we look at the investments in equipment for
environmental standards. Figure 9.4 contains information about the investments in
equipment in 2011 and 2013. All values are adjusted for inflation.
Figure 9.4: Investments in Equipment for Environmental Standards
(billion VND, real values)
2011

2013

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Soil
degradation

Water
pollution

Waste
disposal

Air quality

Noise

Fire

Heat

Lighting

On average, there were more investments in environmental equipment in 2011 than in


2013. The total amount invested declined by around 40 per cent, from 155 billion VND in 2011
to 96.5 billion VND in 2013. The SMEs invested the most in equipment that protects against
soil degradation and water pollution, while the investments in other types of equipment were not
substantial. We see that in 2013 investments in equipment that prevents soil degradation had the
highest real value of around 50 billion VND. While the same type of equipment featured in
2011, its cost was four times lower than the cost of equipment for mitigating water pollution.
Firms invested more in equipment for waste disposal and equipment against noise damage in
2011 than in 2013. The investments in environmental equipment were made recently for
majority of enterprises, coinciding of course with the Environmental Law coming to force. On
average, environmental equipment is six years old, with water disposal equipment being slightly
older than other types of equipment (7.4 years old on average).

-208-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


10. TRADE AND SALES STRUCTURES
In order to develop export-oriented policies and uncover whether it is sensible to
encourage enterprises to export, it is important to understand the export behaviour and the
general sales structures of Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises. This section provides an
overview of the trade and sales structures on the basis of insights from the 2013 SME
survey.

10.1. Export Behaviour


Table 10.1 provides an overview of exporting enterprises disaggregated by age, size,
location and ownership type. In 2013, 150 out of surveyed 2,461 enterprises engaged in
exporting activities, corresponding to 6.1per cent of the whole sample. This compares to 6
per cent in 2011 (145 enterprises). Out of the 150 exporting enterprises in 2013 only 29 are
micro enterprises corresponding to 1.6 per cent of the whole sample. Excluding the micro
enterprises therefore increases the share of exporting enterprises to 21 per cent. Looking at
the balanced panel, 117 out of the 1,988 enterprises exported in 2011 (6 per cent). This
number increased to 133 exporting enterprises in 2013 (6.7 per cent), indicating that more
enterprises become exporters over time.
Theory suggests, on the one hand, that enterprises that are more technically efficient
become exporters because they are able to compete on the international market. On the other
hand, enterprises may learn from exporting. Enterprises that participate in export markets
learn to reduce costs and design products that appeal to foreign consumers, inducing them to
become successful exporters.
Table 10.1: Exporting Enterprises (Percentages)
All
Size

Location
Ownership type

Micro
Small
Medium
Rural
Urban
Households
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company

2011
6.0
1.4
10.9
38.2
4.0
8.8
1.6
7.8
9.2
18.0
10.9

2013
6.1
1.6
13.1
35.6
4.7
7.9
1.8
7.1
14.5
15.6
13.8

According to Table 10.1, a clear enterprise size-effect exists: Larger enterprises have a
higher probability of exporting. Urban enterprises are more likely to export than rural
enterprises. Ownership type also plays a significant role in determining whether an
enterprise exports. Household enterprises are unlikely to export, while around 15 per cent of
the limited liability and the joint stock companies export.

-209-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 10.2 presents details on the exporting enterprises. Out of the 150 exporting
enterprises, only 68 enterprises provided information on the questions stated in Table 10.2.
The average number of foreign customers is four. Around 25 per cent of the exporting
enterprises only have one customer, and 10 per cent of the enterprises have ten or more
customers. This illustrates that exporting enterprises have relatively few foreign trading
partners when engaging in direct exports, suggesting that these enterprises are more demand
specialised compared to non-exporters. The exporting enterprises sell around one half of all
sales in foreign markets: 48.2 per cent of total sales revenue comes from exporting. This
share is higher for rural enterprises compared to those located in urban areas.
Table 10.2: Details on Exporting Enterprises (Percentages)
Observations
Number of direct export customers
What percentage of sales did the enterprise export
Receive product specifications, designs or materials from customer
Use legal advisers when entering direct export contracts
Cooperation with foreign partners provided technology or expertise directly

All
(68)
3.7
48.2
76.5
42.6
66.2

Urban
(44)
3.3
45.8
75.0
52.3
61.4

Rural
(24)
4.5
52.6
79.2
25.0
75.0

Note: Some 68 enterprises out of 150 exporting enterprises responded to all the questions considered in the table.
The characteristics of the exporting enterprises are calculated using the survey data from 2013.

On average 8 out of 10 enterprises receive product specifications, designs or materials


from their foreign customers and over 60 per cent of exporting enterprises were directly
provided with technology or expertise from their foreign trading partners which they would
otherwise not have had access to. Some 40 per cent of enterprises use legal advisers when
entering direct export contracts. Rural enterprises are far less likely to use legal advisers
compared to urban enterprises, which could be a sign of less developed legal services in
rural areas. Finally, exporting enterprises are more likely to advertise. One third of the
exporting enterprises advertise while only 11 per cent of the non-exporting enterprises
advertise, suggesting that visibility is more important for exporting enterprises.
An additional characteristic of exporting enterprises is that exporters on average have
higher earnings compared to non-exporters. Table 10.3 reports total revenue per full-time
employee and total net profit per full-time employee depending on whether the enterprise is
exporting or not. Exporting enterprises earn on average 112 million VND per full-time
employee compared to 61 million VND per full-time employee in non-exporting enterprises.
Independent of enterprise size and location, total revenue per full-time employee is
substantially larger for exporting enterprises. Looking at total net profit per full-time
employee, and excluding the urban firms, exporting enterprises independent of size and
location enjoy a higher net profit per employee than non-exporting enterprises. The
difference in net profits is not large on average, but the gradient becomes higher when
specific enterprise categories are considered separately. For example, micro and small firms
from rural areas seem to do better as exporters than their non-exporting counterparts.

-210-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 10.3: Average Revenue and Net Profit per Full-time Employee

All
Micro
Small
Medium
Urban
Rural

Total revenue per full-time employee


Exporting
Non-exporting
112.3
61.2
73.3
56.3
130.5
75.1
106.8
80.9
113.9
73.9
110.2
51.9

Total net profit per full-time employee


Exporting
Non-exporting
9.6
9.0
10.6
9.4
9.9
7.8
8.6
8.4
8.8
10.4
10.7
8.0

Note: Numbers in million VND.

Without examining causality, results of probit estimations for determining export


performance are reported in Table 10.4. The estimations include the standard firm
characteristics, the logarithm of real revenue, the average real wage rate per employee, and
indicators for whether the enterprise introduced a new products or technology into the
production process.
Table 10.4: Export Determinants
Age
Size
Total revenue
Wage mean
Introduced new product
Improved existing product
Location

Ownership

No. of years (x1,000)


No. of employees (x1,000)
log (x100)
Million VND per employee
Yes = 1
Yes = 1
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
Long An
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company

Sector dummies included


Observation
Pseudo R-squared

Coefficient
0.095
0.475**
1.346***
0.007
0.003
0.018**
-0.004
-0.006
0.011
-0.015***
-0.014***
-0.013***
-0.009**
-0.012***
-0.008
0.011
0.039
0.025**
0.024

z-stats
(1.27)
(2.39)
(5.36)
(1.17)
(0.15)
(2.52)
(-0.85)
(-0.90)
(1.32)
(-4.34)
(-3.46)
(-3.05)
(-1.98)
(-3.00)
(-1.48)
(1.03)
(1.36)
(2.28)
(1.32)

Yes
2,372
0.328

Note: Probit, marginal effects. Un-weighted robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate significance
at 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: HCMC, Household firm, food processing (ISIC 15).

-211-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Summarising, we find several interesting results. First, real revenue per employee is
positively associated with being an exporting enterprise, as suggested in Table 10.3.
Secondly, the average wage payment is positively related to being an exporting enterprise,
suggesting that workers employed in exporting enterprises on average receive a larger wage
payment compared to workers employed in non-exporting enterprises. Taken together,
enterprises with higher productivity, correcting for firm size, are more likely to be exporters.
Thirdly, exporting enterprises are not more likely to introduce new products in the
production process, but they are more likely to make improvements of the existing products.
Enterprises engaged with exporting activities meet a broader spectrum of competitors, so
cost-minimization through the innovation and diversification may be crucial for future
survival. Fourth, exporting enterprises are more likely to come from HCMC than from the
provinces of Hai Phong, Nghe An, Quang Nam, Khanh Hoa and Lam Dong. Lastly,
household enterprises have a lower probability of entering the export market than limited
liability companies. The likelihood that firms with other legal structure enter foreign markets
is not significantly different from household enterprises.
Figure 10.1 shows main export and import destinations in 2013. Out of 150 exporting
enterprises, 85 enterprises provided information on their export destination and 65
enterprises provided information on imports of raw materials. China and Asian countries
remain the main destinations for export and sources of imported goods for Vietnamese
SMEs in 2013. The largest share of exported goods goes to ASEAN countries (around 17
per cent), Japan (16 per cent) and EU countries (15 per cent). Various Asian countries take
up 14.7 per cent of exported goods from SMEs, while the United States take up around 11.
Around 10 per cent of the raw material used in production is directly imported. Most
enterprises stated that raw materials are imported mainly from Asian countries. Some 27.5
per cent are imported from China, while only a minor share of enterprises imports raw
materials from the United States and EU (around 3 per cent each).
Figure 10.1: Export and Import Destinations
Import

Export

30

25

Percent

20

15

10

0
China

Japan

ASEAN

Other Asian

-212-

US

EU

Russia

Other (nonAsian)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


One half of enterprises report that it takes less than two weeks to obtain customs
clearance for export with additional 20 per cent stating that it takes up to a month. Export
times vary a lot between enterprises, but around 40 per cent of 49 enterprises who answered
this question stated that it takes less than two weeks for the cargo to reach the main customer
after it has arrived at the destination of exit from Vietnam. Around 45 per cent of
enterprises report that it takes up to 14 days to obtain customs clearance for import inputs,
whereas 15 per cent of the enterprises experience an import time of raw materials of more
than one month.

10.2. Perceived Competition and Sales Structures


The second part of this chapter focuses on enterprise sales structures and the
enterprises perception of the level of competition in their line of activity. This subsection
focuses on the enterprise sales structure in 2013. The results do not change significantly
when only the balanced panel is considered.
Figure 10.2 gives an indication of the perceived competition faced by urban and rural
enterprises. Independent of location and firm size, around 90 per cent of the enterprises state
that they face some competition in their line of activity. While urban and rural enterprises
feel competitive pressure to a similar degree, small firms were the most frequent in stating
this concern. Reflecting at the past two-year period, 72 per cent of enterprises report that the
competition level has increased since 2011, whereas 24 per cent think the competition level
stayed the same. Only three per cent of enterprises stated that the exposure to competition
declined. This pattern holds for urban and rural enterprises alike, but the sentiment of
increased competition was not as fierce among the rural enterprises as it was among the
urban ones. Following figures illustrate this point: while 63 per cent of rural enterprises felt
that the competitive pressure has increased compared to two years ago, as much as 84 per
cent of urban firms stated the same. Around five per cent of rural firms felt that the level of
competition decreased, but only one per cent of urban firms felt the same.
Figure 10.2 also shows the share of enterprises that have accumulated goods which are
difficult to sell. Some 38 per cent of enterprises have accumulated goods in inventory which
are hard to sell, corresponding to 927 enterprises. A larger share of the urban enterprises has
accumulated goods in inventory compared to rural enterprises: 47 compared to 31 per cent,
respectively. Micro firms have accumulated almost two times less inventory than small and
medium firms. Compared to 2011 we see a higher level of accumulated goods in 2013 an
increase from 33 to 28 per cent. This holds for all firm sizes and especially for urban firms,
whose stock has increased by 19 percentage points. Rural firms are the only exception as
they decreased the amount of accumulated goods by nine percentage points since 2011.
While rural firms escaped the accumulation of goods that are difficult to sell, they were the
most commonly exposed to strong competition. On average, firms felt less competition in
2011 compared to 2013, but the situation is opposite for urban and medium-sized firms.

-213-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 10.2: Perceived Competition (Percentage)
Accumulated goods which are difficult to sell

Face competition in their field of activity

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
All

Urban

Rural

Micro

Location

Small

Medium

Size

All

Urban

Rural

Micro

Location

Small

Medium

Size

2011

2013

We now examine the SMEs perceptions of competition from various sources in order to
determine the main source of competition within manufacturing. The enterprises were asked to
rank the perceived level of competition on a four-point scale and the average scores are presented
in Table 10.5. Even though a vide majority of surveyed firms stated that they feel competitive
pressure from their business environment, the average perceived level of competition is moderate
as shown in Table 10.5. This suggests that many of the surveyed enterprises are operating in
market niches that are unattractive for larger and more advanced firms.
Table 10.5: Perceived Competition from Various Sources
Perceived competition from:

Total Sample
Urban
Rural
Households
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/
Cooperative
Limited liability
company
Joint stock company

Observations

State
enterprises

Private
Private
Legal Smuggling Other
formal
informal imports
sources
enterprises enterprises
2.7
2.9
1.7
1.6
1.7
2.5
2.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
3.0
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.4
2.9
1.5
1.5
1.6
3.0
2.9
1.8
1.7
1.7

(2,149)
(931)
(1,218)
(1,326)
(180)

1.9
1.7
2.2
1.7
2.3

(49)

2.5

3.0

2.9

2.1

2.0

1.7

(493)

2.3

3.2

2.9

2.1

1.9

1.8

(101)

2.6

3.2

3.1

2.0

1.7

1.5

Note: The level of competition was ranked as follows: 4 = severe competition, 3 = Moderate competition, 2 =
Insignificant competition, 1 = No competition, so the higher the number the higher the level of competition
perceived. Missing information on 312 enterprises.

-214-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Overall, the highest level of competition is perceived to be coming from non-state
(private) informal enterprises independent of location and ownership type. This is closely
followed by the competition perceived from formal private firms. Firms dealing with
smuggled goods are considered as least serious competitors. State enterprises, legal imports,
and other sources are not considered to pose much threat. On average, these sources of
competition are ranked as moderate. However, we can observe small differences between
firms in terms of their location and legal status in that private enterprises are more important
competitor to joint stock companies than other legal enterprise forms. Rural enterprises take
most notice of other private firms (both formal and informal) and consider them as the
highest source of competition. Further on, competition from state enterprises is on average
considered to be insignificant, with the possible exception of limited liability companies and
partnership/collective/cooperative enterprises. This may reflect the fact that the typical
Vietnamese SME is likely to manufacture goods that differ from those of larger and more
modern firms.
To respond to competitive pressures, enterprises have taken several steps. For
example, 20 per cent of enterprises have introduced new products as a response to domestic
and foreign competition and 30 per cent of enterprises have made improvements of existing
products for the same reason. Introducing new technology was a way of coping with
competitors for 40 per cent of enterprises. The same proportion of enterprises believes that
increasing the level of informal payments can mitigate the effects of competitive
environment.
As stated above in Figure 10.2, some 38 per cent of enterprises have accumulated
goods. Figure 10.3 shows why enterprises find it difficult to sell the accumulated goods in
inventory. The most important reason is that there are too many of the same products on the
market. The second most important reason for why enterprises find it difficult to sell
accumulated goods is that they do not have access to sales channels. Around five per cent of
firms believe that the quality of the accumulated inventory is too low for selling. This
pattern holds for both urban and rural enterprises.
One way to avoid problems with accumulated goods is to produce on advance orders.
Some 60 per cent of enterprises almost always produce on advance order, whereas only 11
per cent never produce on advance order (results not shown). Larger fraction of urban
enterprises (around 65 per cent) than rural enterprises (around 54 per cent) almost always
produces on advance order. There is a huge variation in using advance orders among firms
of different legal status and size. Only one half of household establishments produce on
advance order, while 74 per cent of joint stock companies routinely does so. Around 86 per
cent of medium-sized firms follow advance orders, but this is the case for only 53 per cent
of micro firms. These findings illustrate that larger firms are surely better equipped for
dealing with competitive business environment.

-215-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Figure 10.3: Main Difficultiesin Selling Accumulated Goods (per cent)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

All

Too much of the The quality is


same product in
too low
the market

Rural

Urban

Do not have Transportation The price is too


access to good
problems
high
sales channels

Other

The results of a probit estimation for determining perceived competition using the
standard characteristics is reported in Table 10.6. Indicators for accumulated goods in
inventory, exports and the number of customers are also included. Without examining
causality, we can conclude that a larger customer base and accumulated goods in inventory
are positively associated with enterprises perceptions of competition. Firms that are located
in HCMC are likely to perceive less competition than firms in Quang Nam, Khanh Hoa and
Lam Dong. It seems that households have lower perception of competition of the market of
which they operate in than limited liability companies and joint stock companies. This is in
accordance with descriptive results from Table 10.5.
Table 10.6: Determinants of Perceived Competition
Enterprise Size
Customer base
Accumulated goods
Export
Location

Ownership

No. of employees (x1,000)


No. of customers
Yes = 1, No = 0
Yes = 1, No = 0
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
Long An
Private/sole proprietorship
Partnership/Collective/Cooperative
Limited liability company
Joint stock company

Sector dummies included


Observation
Pseudo R-squared

Coefficient
-0.335
0.007
0.097***
0.003
0.014
-0.055**
-0.026
-0.056*
0.010
0.043**
0.097***
0.094***
-0.050
0.029
0.033
0.038**
0.050**

z-stats
(-1.15)
(1.17)
(8.13)
(0.13)
(0.68)
(-2.00)
(-1.11)
(-1.67)
(0.49)
(2.17)
(9.43)
(8.37)
(-1.45)
(1.44)
(1.01)
(2.38)
(2.31)

Yes
2,461
0.09

Note: Probit, marginal effects. Un-weighted and cluster robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicates significance at a 10%,
5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: HCMC, Household firm, food processing (ISIC 15).

-216-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


We now turn to the use of production and characteristics of the enterprises customer
base. Table 10.7 looks at the use of enterprise output. Slightly more than40 per cent of the
produced output is used for final consumption and the same share of the produced output is
used as an intermediate input in services. This leaves approximately 15per cent of the output
to be used as intermediate inputs in agriculture and manufacturing. A larger share of
production is used for final consumption in rural enterprises while a larger share of output
produced by urban enterprises is used as intermediate inputs in manufacturing and services.
Enterprises that feel exposed to competition sell a lower share as final consumption than
enterprises facing a lower level of competition.
Compared to the 2009 survey, the 2013 data show a lower rate of goods sold as
intermediate inputs in services (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). The share of goods sold with this
purpose was 48.5 in 2009. Another difference is the increase in the proportion of goods for
final consumption that raised from 32 per cent in 2009 to 42 per cent in 2013. This increase is
observed for both urban and rural firms. Compared to 2009 figures on the share of sales aimed
at final consumption, we see that the gap between firms exposed to competition and firms who
feel that they do not face any competition has largely decreased. In 2009, the difference
between these two categories of firms was around 10 percentage points, while it was only 1.6
percentage points in 2013. Further on, the data show an average decline in sales of goods
aimed for intermediate outputs in manufacturing of around five percentage points.
Table 10.7: Use of Production (per cent)

Observations
Final consumption
Intermediate inputs in agriculture
Intermediate inputs in manufacturing
Intermediate inputs in services
Don't know

All

Competition

No
competition

Urban

Rural

(2,461)
42.0
1.4
12.7
42.0
1.8

(2,164)
41.8
1.5
13.2
41.8
1.8

(297)
43.4
1.3
9.5
43.8
1.8

(1,062)
33.4
1.4
16.7
45.7
2.9

(1,399)
48.6
1.5
9.7
39.3
0.9

As mentioned in Chapter 6, diversification in demand is thought of as the number of


customers. Diversifying the customer base can make enterprises less vulnerable to demand
shocks. Table 10.8 reports that around one half of the surveyed enterprises have more than
20 customers. Enterprises being exposed to competition have only slightly larger customer
base than enterprises without declared competitive pressure. Albeit small, this difference
may indicate that enterprises seek to avoid demand shocks and decrease competition through
customer diversification. Further on, rural enterprises tend to have slightly larger customer
base compared to urban enterprises.
Manufacturing firms interviewed in the 2013 survey round sell to customers located on
average 43 km away from their production premise. Figure 10.4 provides an overview of the
location of customers relative to the enterprise location. There are sizeable differences in the
location of customers between urban and rural enterprises. However, this difference is
within province where 79 and 87 per cent of the customers are located, respectively. Around

-217-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


68 per cent of the rural enterprise customers are located within the same commune or
another commune within the same district. For urban enterprises, this number is 43 per cent.
Table 10.8: Customer Base (per cent)

Observations
Exclusively one customer
2-5 customers
6-10 customers
11-20 customers
Over 20 customers

All

Competition

No
competition

Urban

Rural

(2,461)
1.2
9.0
16.9
25.4
47.5

(2,164)
1.1
8.9
16.9
25.4
47.8

(297)
2.4
9.8
17.2
25.6
45.1

(1,062)
0.9
7.5
15.4
29.5
46.7

(1,399)
1.5
10.1
18.1
22.3
48.0

On average, only 7 per cent of the customers are located in non-neighbouring provinces
and while urban firms supply customer in more distant provinces in 9 per cent of the cases,
rural enterprises do so in 7 per cent of the cases. The same pattern of supplying nearby
customers was observed in the 2009 survey and the numbers have minimally changed since
then (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). The major difference is that rural enterprises have even
more local customers: the share of customers within the same province increased from 81
per cent in 2009 to 87 per cent in 2013. The share of customers located in the same
commune increased for rural firms from 65 per cent in 2009 to 68 per cent in 2013. The
same indicator for urban enterprises increased from 34 to 43 per cent in the same period.
Figure 10.4: Location of Customers (per cent)
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Same commune

Other commune within district

Other district within province

Neighbouring province

Other province (non-neighbouring)

Export

All

Rural

Urban

The general sales structure of the most important product is shown in Table 10.9.
Slightly over one half of enterprises sell their most important product to domestic non-state
enterprises, whereas 38 per cent sell to individual local people. Compared to the data from
2009, we see an increase in the rate of selling to locals (CIEM, DoE, ILSSA, 2010). There was
an increase from 31 per cent to 38 per cent in 2013. We also see a decline in the rate of selling
to domestic private enterprises that decreased from 60 per cent in 2009 to 53 per cent in 2013.

-218-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Table 10.9: Sales Structure (per cent)
All

Competition

No
competition

Urban

Rural

Individual local people

38.3

38.1

40.0

30.0

44.6

Tourists

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.7

Non-commercial government authorities

1.2

1.3

0.9

0.7

1.6

Domestic non-state enterprises

53.0

52.9

53.2

58.8

48.6

State enterprises

4.1

4.3

2.3

5.6

2.9

Foreign invested companies

1.3

1.4

0.2

2.2

0.6

Export

1.6

1.4

2.9

2.3

1.0

The result from Table 10.5 on use of production is confirmed: Enterprises that feel
strong competitive pressure mainly sell products to other domestic non-state enterprises as
intermediate inputs. Rural enterprises sell a relatively larger share to individuals and noncommercial government authorities, while urban enterprises sell a relatively larger share of
their main product to domestic non-state enterprises. It appears that urban enterprises most
frequently supply state enterprises. Moreover, it is confirmed that exporting enterprises are
primarily located in urban areas. Exporting enterprises that also sell to local consumers
(final consumption) experience less severe competition compared to non-exporting
enterprises.
The main criteria for setting prices are shown in Table 10.10. Some 78 per cent of
enterprises use a fixed mark-up over production and 15 per cent set prices on the basis of
individual negotiations with each customer. Firms feeling exposed to competition do not
depart from the average price-setting pattern of behaviour. However, firms stating that they
do not face competition engage more frequently in individual negotiations with customers
than other enterprises. Rural enterprises are more likely than other firms to charge prices
similar to their competitors. The preferences of SMEs have not changed in this regard
compared to 2009 survey. The overall impression is that they more readily use fixed markup over production and less individual negotiations now than in 2009.
Table 10.10: Main Criteria for Setting Prices (per cent)
All

Competition

No
competition

Urban

Rural

Fixed mark-up over production

77.8

78.3

74.1

79.7

76.3

Charge similar prices as competitors

6.1

6.3

4.7

4.4

7.4

Charge somewhat lower prices than closet


competitors

0.9

0.9

0.7

1.5

0.4

Individual negotiation with each customer

14.9

14.2

19.9

13.8

15.7

Price is government controlled

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.1

Other

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

-219-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


In the final section of this chapter, we look at the type of advertisement used by SMEs.
In the 2013 sample, some 13 per cent of the enterprises advertised. This is only a two
percentage point increase compared to 2009. The average amount used on advertising was
31.8 billion VND. Even though urban enterprises were twice as likely to advertise than rural
enterprises, they spent slightly less than rural firms on advertising in 2013. Urban firms
spent 31 billion VND on advertising while rural enterprises spent 33 billion VND. This may
reflect the fact that it is more difficult for rural enterprises to attract and keep customers.
Among the exporting enterprises 41 per cent advertises while 11 per cent of nonexporting enterprises does the same. Figure 10.5 illustrates the type of advertisement used
depending on enterprise location.
Figure 10.5: Type of Advertisement (per cent)
Internet
Newspapers or yellow pages
Trade fairs
Street posters
Door-to-door information
Other
TV
Rural

Radio
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Urban
70%

All
80%

Advertising on the Internet seems to be the most popular for al firms. This is followed
by newspaper advertisements and promotions in trade fairs. Huge differences exist between
urban and rural enterprises in respect to where they advertise. While 76 per cent of urban
enterprises focuses on Internet advertisement, 39 per cent of rural firms do the same. Around
45 per cent of the rural enterprises use street posters, whereas only 16 per cent of the urban
firms use this advertisement strategy. Newspapers are used slightly more by urban than rural
firms: 36 and 29 per cent, respectively. Notably, radio and TV are two of the least used
types of advertisement perhaps because the prices are prohibitively high. Indeed, firms who
advertise on TV paid on average 86 billion VND and firms who advertise on radio paid 135
billion VND on advertising in 2013, which is much larger than the average sum spent on
advertising by all firms in the sample.
The results of probit estimation for analysing which factors determine firms decision
to advertise are reported in Table 10.11. The estimation is based on the usual firm
characteristics and education, level of competition, accumulated goods in inventory, access

-220-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


to internet and having a website. According to the estimation results, larger enterprises are
more likely to advertise as well as enterprises with access to Internet and website. As
expected, enterprises that experience competition in their line of business are more likely to
advertise. The probability of advertisement is lower for households than for other ownership
types. Finally, none of the provinces advertise differently than HCMC, suggesting perhaps
even attitude towards advertising in face of competition across provinces.
Table 10.11: Determinants of Advertisement
Coefficient

t-stats

-0.317

(-0.57)

0.632***

(3.07)

-0.016

(-1.11)

0.040***

(3.60)

-0.007

(-0.65)

Internet

0.638***

(13.04)

Website

0.068***

(3.63)

Ownership

0.769***

(5.71)

Ha Noi

0.012

(0.69)

Phu Tho

0.051

(1.59)

Ha Tay

-0.000

(-0.02)

Hai Phong

0.006

(0.30)

Nghe An

0.002

(0.12)

Quang Nam

-0.020

(-0.94)

Khanh Hoa

-0.019

(-0.89)

Lam Dong

-0.034

(-1.50)

0.173***

(3.30)

Enterprise Age

No. of years (x1,000)

Enterprise Size

No. of employees (x1,000)

Professional education
Competition
Accumulated goods

Location

Long An
Sector dummies included

Yes

Observation

2,449

Pseudo R-squared

0.49

Note: Probit, marginal effects. Un-weighted and cluster robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate
significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: HCMC, Household firm, food processing (ISIC 15).

-221-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


11. CONCLUSION
We present below a summary of some of the most important findings from the
data and report.
Around 70 per cent of surveyed enterprises stated that the international crisis still had a
negative effect on their doing business conditions in 2013 and only 15 per cent of
enterprises has not (at some point in time) felt the negative effects of the 2007/08 crisis
(reported in either 2011 or 2013). Overall, fewer firms in 2013 believe that the negative
effects of the 2007/08 international crisis will be only temporary as compared to 2011.
As in 2011, micro sized firms are less affected by the crisis than their larger
counterparts. Moreover, while fewer firms felt affected by the 2007/08 international
crises in the south in 2011 (67%) as compared to 2011 (69%), firms in the northern part
of the country sensed an increase in constraints between 2011 (55%) and 2013 (71%). It
is surprising that in terms of the rural/urban split both urban and rural firms feel more
constrained by the international crisis in 2013 as compared to 2011. This is in contrast
to the 2009 survey round, when rural firms felt less constrained by the crisis (CIEM,
DoE, ILSSA, 2010).
Between 2011 and 2013, a decrease in total employment of 7.4 per cent was observed.
Small and medium enterprises were reducing the number of full-time employees at a
higher rate than micro enterprises. However, several provinces have experienced
positive employment growth, such as Nghe An, Quang Nam and Lam Dong. Moreover,
employment growth was particularly seen in chemical industry, rubber and textile,
whereas shrinking sectors in terms of employment were vehicles and basic metals.
The annual enterprise survival rate between 2011 and 2013 decreased to 90.6 per cent
from a figure of 92.2 per cent observed between 2009 and 2011. Urban centres like Ha
Noi and HCMC experienced above average firm exit rates. Also Hai Phong, Khanh
Hoa, Ha Tay and Lam Dong showed above average exit rates. Moreover, firms in paper
sector had the highest probability of exiting, which may point to some competitiveness
concerns in this particular sector.
The overall impressions about the business environment do not appear to have been
improved compared to the previous survey period. As in 2009 and 2011, very few firms
are facing no constraints in doing business. Informality in payments and access to
finance remain some of the most serious problems, resembling very much the situation
between 2009 and 2011.
Compared to the previous report that covered the period between 2009 and 2011, there
is a slow-down in the rate of firms moving into the formal sector. Around 8 per cent of
the firms not formally registered in 2011 had obtained a business registration license
(and a tax code) by 2013. This number was 20 per cent in previous report (CIEM, DoE,
ILSSA and UNU-WIDER, 2012). Just as in previous report, there is some evidence of

-222-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


formalisation having a positive employment growth effect. As such, the government
should continue pursuing its current formalisation policies. However, formal registration
does not protect against exit, as a negative relationship between registration and survival
is observed.
More firms are making informal payments in 2013 than in 2011, and as in 2009, the
results show that formality and increases in the probability of paying bribes go hand-inhand. The analysis of the purpose of informal payments reveals that bribes increasingly
go to dealing with taxes and tax collectors as well as to obtaining connection to public
services. There is, however, a large share of undisclosed reasons for informal payments.
Finally, the data highlight that firms paying bribes have a higher probability of exit.
Perhaps an information campaign on the highly negative features of corruption may be
necessary to reduce the pressure of informal payments both for those who demand
themand those who supply.
One part of the difficulties related to the economic crisis is the increase in the number of
laid-off workers, who are likely candidates for establishing micro-enterprises. Thus,
policies that are supportive of efficient and inexpensive formalisation are expected to be
especially beneficial for this sensitive socio-economic category.
The average enterprise is relatively specialised and fewer firms diversified in 2013 as
compared to 2011. Larger firms are more diversified than micro firms. As such, product
diversification does not seem to be a tool for risk reduction among the Vietnamese
manufacturing SMEs. Likewise, there was a sharp decline in innovation between 2011
and 2013, both in terms of introducing new products and improving the existing ones.
Especially rural micro firms are driving this decline. Results show that this decline
could be a problem for future dynamics, as innovation through the improvement of
existing products is positively related to firm performance. Therefore, an increasing
policy focus should be given to the improvement of the innovative capacity of SMEs.
Labour productivity has declined between 2011 and 2013, and the decline is especially
driven by micro rural enterprises. Enterprises located in the south have a higher level of
labour productivity compared to their northern counterparts. Especially the furniture and
food processing sectors have seen a large labour productivity decrease between 2011
and 2013. An increased policy focus should be given to this issue if Vietnam is to
follow a sustained and inclusive employment growth path.
The share of enterprises making investments has declined since 2011, and it is especially
micro-sized urban firms in the south that have contributed to this decline. The average
amount of the investment financed by retained earnings has declined compared to 2011,
and a higher share of investments is financed by informal loans. In light of the current
investment decline, economic policies should address the declining investment trend
coupled with an increasing shift towards the use of informal credit among the SMEs.
The credit availability from formal sources appears to have increased compared to 2011.
Nevertheless, around 37 per cent of enterprises can still be considered credit

-223-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

constrained. This number is only two percentage points lower than in 2011. Twice as
many firms obtain informal loans as compared to formal ones, and around 70 per cent of
the constrained group (in formal credit markets) has access to loans from informal
sources. Remembering that informal loans finance only 13per cent of total investments
shows that informal loans are small but a frequent part of Vietnamese SMEs financing
scheme. Household firms are less likely to obtain informal credit, which means that
more formal (non-constrained) entities also rely on informal sources of financing
investments. What follows is a suggestion that policies should ease formal loan access,
reflecting the fact that informal credit sources cannot assure an inclusive growth path
sustained by investments in the SME sector.
Compared to 2011, there were no changes in the labour force share of regular workers.
There was, however, a decrease in the proportion of full time workers and an increase in
the use of female and casual workforce. When the economy is stable and the confidence
in the future is high, firms tend to hire more regular workers and less casual workers.
The data on the labour force from this survey round unfortunately indicate that a
recovery from the global economic crisis still has not been completed.
As in 2011, recruiting difficulties exist. Since the share of well-educated workers is
relatively high, it seems that these recruiting difficulties may be due to lack of labour
market information rather than an actual lack of skilled workers. This suggests that a
strengthening of information systems would benefit both workers and firms and could
help match worker skills and job functions.
Higher education level of workers is positively correlated with growth of wages.
However, it should be noted that average individual wages vary considerably by
occupational category, and across all occupations wages are higher for men than for
women. Coupled with a slight increase in the female labour share, this may mean that
under the financial pressures, SMEs are employing more female workers as a way of
decreasing costs. With regard to the empowerment of workers, those employed in larger
firms benefit relatively more from firm gains through a higher wage. On average, the
provision of all types of benefits appears to have decreased slightly since 2011, but there
is a huge variation within the benefit categories. Payments of social insurance, health
insurance, unemployment contributions and sick leave have increased since 2011. As
such the data seem to confirm that the education and remuneration policies focusing on
the empowerment of workers are taking hold.
For a large proportion of SMEs, environment-friendly activities remain out of scope
even though it is widely recognised that environmental certification can bring
commercial advantages. Very few enterprises have any real knowledge of the
environmental legal framework governing their relationship with the natural
environment. Correspondingly, compliance is weak with worrying potential
consequences for the natural environment. The role of government in this area is clear.
Policies should be directed to raising SMEs awareness of environmental issues and

-224-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


assisting them to implement legislation, assess their environmental performance and
upgrade skills and qualifications.
The share of exporting enterprises was 6 per cent in 2013. It is noteworthy that the share
of exporters in the sample has remained the same since 2009, illustrating weak
capabilities of SMEs to enter and remain in foreign markets. A clear size effect is
observed in that larger enterprises have much higher chances of exporting. In general,
SMEs that export are characterised by few trading partners, suggesting that exporting
enterprises are highly demand-specialised. These enterprises also have high average
revenue per full-time employee.
Independent of location, almost 90 per cent of surveyed enterprises face severe
competition in their line of activity. Private enterprises are regarded as the main
competitors independent of location and ownership type. This suggests that many of the
enterprises from our sample are operating in market niches that are unattractive for
larger and more advanced firms. Enterprises may seek to minimise competition and
avoid demand shocks through customer diversification.
In sum, the present report has provided, as is the case for previous reports, insights into
the ongoing situation of the SMEs in Vietnam and some of the main issues they face. The
outcome of this report is somewhat more disheartening compared to two years ago, because
the effects of the financial crisis seem to be lingering. This overview of the business
environment in Vietnam is very much reflective of the underlying structural challenges that
need to be addressed through a series of new policies and a new development strategy.

-225-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

References

Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B. & Lawrence, R. Z. (1995).Exporters, Jobs, and Wages in


U.S. Manufacturing: 1976-1987. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics,
1995, 67119.
CIEM, DoE, ILSSA. (2010). Characteristics of the Vietnamese Business Environment:
Evidence from a SME Survey in 2009. Ha Noi: Central Institute for Economic Management.
Retrieved from http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/33627835/SME09FinalReport.pdf
CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER. (2012). Report: Characteristics of the
Vietnamese Business Environment: Evidence from a SME Survey in 2011. Central Institute
for Economic Management. Retrieved from http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications
/miscellaneous/en_GB/report-2012-sme/
EPI.(2014). Country Rankings.Environmental Performance Index. Retrieved from
http://epi.yale.edu/epi/country-rankings
Ericson, R. &Pakes, A. (1995). Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for
Empirical Work. The Review of Economic Studies, 62(1), 5382.
Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. &Syverson, C. (2008). Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and
Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability? American Economic Review, 98(1),
394425.
Gadenne, D. L., Kennedy, J. &McKeiver, C. (2009). An Empirical Study of
Environmental Awareness and Practices in SMEs.Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 4563.
GSO. (2003). Industrial Complete Survey 2001 - 2003. Hanoi: General Statistics Office Of
Vietnam. Retrieved from http://www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=479&idmid=4&ItemID
=1822
GSO. (2004). Results of Establishment Census of Vietnam 2002: Volume 2 Business
Establishments. Ha Noi: Statistical Publishing House.
GSO. (2007). The Real Situation of Enterprises: Through the Results of Surveys
Conducted in 2004, 2005, 2006. Ha Noi: Statistical Publishing House.
GSO. (2013). Report on the 2012 Vietnam Labour Force Survey. Ha Noi: Statistical
Publishing House.

-226-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Hansen, H., Rand, J. & Tarp, F. (2009). Enterprise Growth and Survival in Vietnam:
Does Government Support Matter? Journal of Development Studies, 45(7), 10481069.
Hering, L. &Poncet, S. (2010). Market Access and Individual Wages: Evidence from
China. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(1), 145159.
ILO. (2009). Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Global Economic
Crisis: Impacts and Policy Responses. Geneva: International Labour Organization.
Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the Evolution of Industry.Econometrica, 50(3),
64970.
Jovanovic, B. (1993). The Diversification of Production.C.V. Starr Center for Applied
Economics, New York University. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/cvs/starer/9311.html
Larsen, A. F., Rand, J. & Torm, N. (2011). Do Recruitment Ties Affect Wages? An
Analysis Using Matched EmployerEmployee Data from Vietnam. Review of Development
Economics, 15(3), 541555.
Liedholm, C. E. & Mead, D. C. (1999).Small Enterprises and Economic Development:
The Dynamics of Micro and Small Enterprises. London and New York: Routledge.
Liu, A. Y. C. (2004). Gender wage gap in Vietnam: 1993 to 1998. Journal of
Comparative Economics, 32(3), 225240.
Malesky, E. (2013). The Vietnam Provincial Competitiveness Index: Measuring
Economic Governance for Private Sector Development. 2012 Final Report. Ha Noi,
Vietnam: Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry and United States Agency for
International Developments Vietnam Competitiveness Initiative.
Newman, C., Rand, J. & Tarp, F. (2013).Industry Switching in Developing
Countries.The World Bank Economic Review, 27(2), 357388.
OECD. (2005). Environment and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises:
Corporate Tools and Approaches. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OMahony, M. &Vecchi, M. (2009).R&D, Knowledge Spillovers and Company
Productivity Performance.Research Policy, 38(1), 3544.
Porter, M. E. & Linde, C. V. D. (1995).Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/product/green-and-competitiveending-the-stalemate/an/95507-PDF-ENG

-227-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


Psomas, E. L., Fotopoulos, C. V. &Kafetzopoulos, D. P. (2011). Motives, Difficulties
and Benefits in Implementing the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System.
Management of Environmental Quality, 22(4), 502521. Retrieved February 18, 2014,
Rand, J. (2007). Credit Constraints and Determinants of the Cost of Capital in
Vietnamese Manufacturing.Small Business Economics, 29(1/2), 113.
Rand, J., Silva, P., Tarp, F., Cuong, T. T. & Tam, N. T. (2008).Characteristics of the
Vietnamese Business Environment: Evidence from a SME Survey in 2007. Ha Noi: Central
Institute for Economic Management.
Rand, J. & Tarp, F. (2007).Characteristics of the Vietnamese Business Environment:
Evidence from a SME Survey in 2005. Ha Noi: Central Institute for Economic Management.
Rand, J. & Tarp, F. (2011). Does Gender Influence the Provision of Fringe Benefits?
Evidence From Vietnamese SMEs. Feminist Economics, 17(1), 5987.
Rand, J. & Tarp, F. (2012).Firm-Level Corruption in Vietnam.Economic Development
and Cultural Change, 60(3), 571595.
Rand, J. & Torm, N. (2012). The Benefits of Formalization: Evidence from
Vietnamese Manufacturing SMEs. World Development, 40(5), 983998.
Simpson, M., Taylor, N. & Barker, K. (2004). Environmental Responsibility in SMEs:
Does It Deliver Competitive Advantage? Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(3),
156171.
Soderbom, M., Teal, F. &Wambugu, A. (2005). Unobserved Heterogeneity and the
Relation between Earnings and Firm Size: Evidence from Two Developing Countries.
Economics Letters, 87(2), 153159.
Tybout, J. R. (2000). Manufacturing Firms in Developing Countries: How Well Do
They Do, and Why? Journal of Economic Literature, 38(1), 1144.
Vijverberg, W. M. & Haughton, J. (2004). Household Enterprises in Vietnam:
Survival, Growth, and Living Standards, in: Glewwe, P., Agrawal, N., and Dolalr, D. (Eds.),
Economic Growth, Poverty, and Household Welfare in Vietnam, (pp. 95132). Washington,
DC:
The
World
Bank.
Retrieved
February
19,
2014,
from
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/2773.html
Vu, V. H. (2012). Does Export Participation Affect Wages and Employment Quality?
The Case of Vietnamese SMEs.University Library of Munich, Germany. Retrieved from
http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/38696.html

-228-

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT


World Bank. (2011). Performance Assessment Review of Investment Climate
Assessment in Five Transforming Economies: Bangladesh, Egypt, Guatemala, Kenya, and
Vietnam.
Washington,
DC:
World
Bank.
Retrieved
from
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2011/06/14561035/performance-assessmentreview-investment-climate-assessment-five-transforming-economies-bangladesh-egyptguatemala-kenya-vietnam
World Bank & IFC. (2013). Doing Business 2014. Understanding Regulations for
Small and Medium-Size Enterprises. Washington, DC: The World Bank and the
International Finance Corporation.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. & Lai, K. (2007). Green Supply Chain Management: Pressures,
Practices and Performance within the Chinese Automobile Industry. Journal of
CleanerProduction, 15(1112), 10411052. RetrievedFebruary 18, 2014,

-229-

NH XUT BN TI CHNH

C IM MI TRNG
KINH DOANH VIT NAM
KT QU IU TRA DOANH NGHIP NH V VA NM 2013

Chu trch nhim xut bn:


NGUYN NH CN
(Ph Gim c - Ph Tng bin tp)

In 400 cun, kh 20,5 cm x 29,5 cm.


KXB 32-2014/CXB/198-210/TC: 196/Q-NXBTC ngy 27/10/2014
Ti Dch v cung ng tng hp Minh Tm
In xong v np lu chiu thng 10 nm 2014

DANIDA PROJECT OFFICE


CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC
MANAGEMENT
2 nd FLOOR, BLOCK C,
68 PHAN DINH PHUNG STREET
HANOI, VIETNAM

You might also like