Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NH XUT BN TI CHNH
C IM MI TRNG
KINH DOANH VIT NAM
KT QU IU TRA DOANH NGHIP NH V VA NM 2013
- ii -
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-
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 -
- iii -
- iv -
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-
Danh mc t vit tt
BRC
BSPS
CIEM
CPI
Ch s gi tiu dng
DOLISA
ESC
EIA
nh gi tc ng mi trng
HCMC
Thnh ph H Ch Minh
ILSSA
ISIC
GSO
Tng cc Thng k
HH
H gia nh
MOLISA
MONRE
B Ti nguyn v Mi trng
MPI
B K hoch v u t
S quan st
OLS
SD
lch chun
SME
Doanh nghip nh v va
USD
la M
VHLSS
VND
Vit Nam ng
- vi -
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.
-1-
-2-
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-
-4-
GII THIU
-5-
-6-
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-
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
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-
H
Ni
Ph
Th
15
71
117
87
40
120
56
38
29
144
53
755 (30,7)
17
Dt
48
29
96
(3,9)
18
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
37
72
(2,9)
22
13
30
64
(2,6)
23
(0,3)
24
11
25
52
(2,1)
25
33
11
64
131
(5,3)
26
15
21
13
102
(4,1)
27
Kim loi c bn
27
(1,1)
28
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
(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
(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-
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 -
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
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
12
12
37
72
(2,9)
22
17
12
33
64
(2,6)
23
(0,3)
24
15
27
52
(2,1)
25
42
14
10
55
10
131
(5,3)
26
57
10
20
10
102
(4,1)
27
Kim loi c bn
12
27
(1,1)
28
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
(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)
Nh
Va
Tng
s
Phn
trm
1.435
118
1.553
(63,1)
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 -
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Tng s
Phn trm
15
637
97
21
755
(30,7)
17
Dt
59
32
96
(3,9)
18
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
27
34
11
72
(2,9)
22
43
21
64
(2,6)
23
(0,3)
24
23
25
52
(2,1)
25
61
55
15
131
(5,3)
26
55
30
17
102
(4,1)
27
Kim loi c bn
17
27
(1,1)
28
344
63
14
421
(17,1)
29-32
My mc
29
27
65
(2,6)
34
Xe c, v.v...
12
(0,5)
35
(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).
- 13 -
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.
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
473
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 -
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
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)
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 -
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
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 -
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
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
- 17 -
(4,7)
(100,0)
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
- 18 -
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 -
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)
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 -
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
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 -
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
616
1,003
0,256
1,000
0,3
17
Dt
81
1,025
0,329
1,000
2,5
18
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
49
0,984
0,206
1,000
-1,6
22
50
0,970
0,231
1,000
-3,0
24
32
1,042
0,316
1,000
4,2
25
102
1,037
0,265
1,000
3,7
26
88
0,977
0,251
1,000
-2,3
27
Kim loi c bn
29
0,930
0,297
0,925
-7,0
28
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
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 -
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)
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).
- 23 -
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.
- 24 -
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)
- 25 -
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
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
Quy m
Xut khu
C s h gia nh
Siu nh
Ghi ch: cc c tnh t l thot khi th trng trung bnh (phi trng s).
- 26 -
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
- 27 -
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
734
0,161
0,368
17
Dt
104
0,221
0,417
18
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
67
0,269
0,447
22
59
0,152
0,363
23
Lc du, v.v...
0,143
0,378
24
39
0,179
0,389
25
114
0,105
0,308
26
114
0,228
0,421
27
Kim loi c bn
35
0,171
0,382
28
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
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 -
Phn
trm
Ngnh
Tng s
288
14,5
15
22
1,8
17
Dt
24
14,5
18
25
14,0
19
Thuc da v da may mc
12
16,7
20
G v cc sn phm g
94
23,3
21
24
23,5
22
10
10,6
24
13
20,0
25
31
15,3
26
29
16,8
27
Kim loi c bn
25
51,0
28
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
- 29 -
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)
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)
Long An
Hnh thc s hu
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).
- 30 -
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)
40
30
15
24
23
26
8
7
2
5
3
3
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 -
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)
- 32 -
Siu nh (<10)
Nh (10-49)
Va (50-300)
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)
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)
- 33 -
Tng s
1.699
(100,0)
288
(100,0)
1.987
(100,0)
2013
Phn
trm
S lng
Phn
trm
S lng
72,7
1.759
71,4
1.757
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 -
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)
(69,3)
(100,0)
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
(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
ng k kinh doanh
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 -
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
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 -
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)
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)
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 -
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
(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 -
t-stat
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)
-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)
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 -
U T V TIP CN TI CHNH
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
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 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)
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 -
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
Khc
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
Ghi ch: Tng mu 2013. 1.156 quan st. Cc khon vay ti chnh chnh thc c tnh l s d.
- 42 -
2013
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
t ai
Thit b v my mc
a c
Khc
- 43 -
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
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
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
- 44 -
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 -
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
65,1
34,9
41,7
(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 -
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
2013
2011
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
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)
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
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)
-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)
-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
Tn dng
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)
-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)
-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 -
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 -
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
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 -
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)
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)
-0,054***
(-5,13)
0,003
(0,61)
0,044**
(2,54)
-0,026***
(-2,66)
-0,006*
(-1,77)
0,011
(0,75)
-0,004
(-0,47)
-0,030***
(-6,67)
-0,224***
(-16,02)
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 -
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)
-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)
0,033**
(2,56)
0,033**
(2,56)
0,031**
(2,46)
S quan st (DN)
1.987
1.988
1.988
R-squared
0,13
0,13
0,13
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)
-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)
-0,027*
(-1,67)
-0,027*
(-1,66)
-0,026
(-1,57)
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 -
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
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 -
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
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 -
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
Ghi ch: LP i din cho nng sut lao ng. Ch cc ngnh c trn 100 quan st/nm mi c tnh ton.
- 57 -
dln(LP2)
H s
Thng k-t
H s
Thng k-t
-0,477***
(-20,16)
-0,577***
(-24,11)
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)
0,052*
(1,65)
0,076***
(2,73)
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)..
- 58 -
Mc cng ngh
2011
2013
5,3
5,0
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.
- 59 -
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
- 60 -
H s
Thng k-t
Tc ng bin
Thng k-t
0,045***
(2,60)
-0.039*
(-1,80)
-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 -
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
- 62 -
- 63 -
H s
o lng 2
Thng kt
H s
Mi thnh lp
-0,171***
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
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.
- 64 -
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 %?
- 65 -
10
20
30
40
Cng x
Khc x nhng cng
huyn
2011
2013
Tnh ln cn
Tnh khc (khng gn k)
Nhp khu trc tip
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
- 66 -
LAO NG
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
DN
siu nh
DN
nh
DN
va
Thnh
th
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)
818
Ghi ch: Gi tr trung bnh, t l phn trm trn tng s lao ng, mu cn bng
- 68 -
DN siu nh DN nh
DN va
Pha Bc
2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013
Qun l
5,6
6,3
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
457
118
95
815
0,2
0,1
0,2
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 -
Qun l
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.
- 70 -
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
- 71 -
Siu nh
Nh
Va
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
67,1
56
76,1
76,5
70,9
63,9
18,5
24
12,5
17,6
20,4
16,8
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)
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 -
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
37
34
48,1
30,3
44,1
31,7
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
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
2.461
1.763
566
132
1.062
1.399
- 73 -
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
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
564
145
132
4,8
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 -
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 -
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
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 -
- 77 -
Nh
Va
Thnh th
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
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.
2,95
Ch doanh nghip
C quan h vi ch doanh nghip
33,76
36,71
16,03
- 78 -
3000
N
Nam
2000
1000
0
Qun l
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.
- 79 -
1000
2013
500
0
Qun l
Chuyn
mn
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.
- 80 -
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)
(2)
0,158***
(2,88)
0,017
(0,36)
-0,015
(-0,94)
-0,017
(-1,10)
0,011
(0,54)
0,017
(0,85)
0,014**
(2,20)
0,013**
(2,06)
-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)
0,326***
(4,39)
0,091
(1,35)
0,211***
(3,09)
0,020
(0,31)
0,331***
(3,77)
0,174**
(2,00)
0,417***
(4,57)
0,242***
(2,68)
0,030
(0,47)
-0,008
(-0,12)
-0,049
(-0,98)
0,108**
(2,01)
-0,219
(-1,52)
-0,136***
(-2,93)
0,129***
(5,45)
-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
Khng
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.
- 81 -
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
19,4
17,8
21,0
27,3
19,4
1,8
1,4
2,5
3,0
4,4
3,0
6,4
1,0
1,1
47,1
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
- 82 -
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
20,8
4,9
50,0
93,9
33,8
10,3
26,8
16,0
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
26,4
9,0
58,4
93,9
41,3
14,0
34,8
19,6
51,9
38,8
77,2
98,5
72,1
35,2
69,5
37,6
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 -
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 m
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.
- 84 -
Nam
Chung
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Chung
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Pha Bc
Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2013. Cc doanh nghip thiu thng tin s b loi.
- 85 -
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
563
143
312
108
374
189
- 86 -
BO V MI TRNG
- 87 -
Ton b
Tnh/thnh
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
- 88 -
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)
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 -
(%)
2013
Khng
(%)
Tng
(%)
Khng (%)
Tng
15
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
(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
(26,9)
49
(73,1)
67
17
(23,6)
55
(76,4)
72
22
(13,6)
51
(86,4)
59
(7,8)
59
(92,2)
64
23
(14,3)
(85,7)
(25,0)
(75,0)
24
20
(51,3)
19
(48,7)
39
24
(46,2)
28
(53,8)
52
25
41
(36,0)
73
(64,0)
114
47
(35,9)
84
(64,1)
131
26
(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
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
(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.
- 90 -
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 -
64
Yu cu ca php lut
60
20
16
L do c nhn
8
9
5
10
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.
- 92 -
2011
2013
Tt c
2013
Tt c
28,4
26,8
27,6
46,0
32,3
38,8
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
1,4
0,6
1,0
1,0
0,6
0,8
Tng s
289
323
612
289
322
611
33,2
27,2
30,1
45,6
31,6
38,3
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
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
- 93 -
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
- 94 -
nh sng
- 95 -
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 -
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)
3,7
3,3
4,5
48,2
45,8
52,6
76,5
75,0
79,2
42,6
52,3
25,0
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 -
Xut khu
112,3
73,3
130,5
106,8
113,9
110,2
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
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).
- 98 -
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
)
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.
- 100 -
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tng Thnh Nng
thn
th
Siu
nh
a im
Nh
Va
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 -
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 -
Thnh th
Nng thn
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Qu nhiu sn
phm cng loi
Cht lng sn
phm thp
Khc
S hu
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 -
(2.461)
(2.164)
(297)
(1.062)
(1.399)
42,0
41,8
43,4
33,4
48,6
1,4
1,5
1,3
1,4
1,5
12,7
13,2
9,5
16,7
9,7
42,0
41,8
43,8
45,7
39,3
Khng bit
1,8
1,8
1,8
2,9
0,9
- 104 -
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
9,0
8,9
9,8
7,5
10,1
16,9
16,9
17,2
15,4
18,1
25,4
25,4
25,6
29,5
22,3
47,5
47,8
45,1
46,7
48,0
S quan st
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 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
38,3
38,1
40,0
30,0
44,6
Khch du lch
0,6
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,7
1,2
1,3
0,9
0,7
1,6
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
- 106 -
Cnh tranh
Khng
cnh tranh
Thnh
th
Nng
thn
77,8
78,3
74,1
79,7
76,3
6,1
6,3
4,7
4,4
7,4
0,9
0,9
0,7
1,5
0,4
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%
- 107 -
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)
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)
aim
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 -
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 -
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 -
- 111 -
- 112 -
- 113 -
- 114 -
- 115 -
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
VIETNAMESE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
EVIDENCE FROM A SME SURVEY IN 2013
-118-
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-
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-
-121-
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-
BSPS
CIEM
CPI
DOLISA
ESC
EIA
HCMC
ILSSA
ISIC
GSO
HH
Household
MOLISA
MONRE
MPI
Number of Observations
OLS
SD
Standard Deviation
SME
USD
VHLSS
VND
Vietnamese Dong
-123-
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-
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-
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-
-127-
-128-
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
Ha Noi
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)
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)
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-
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-
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
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)
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)
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)
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-
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.
-134-
2011
2013
2011
2013
Balanced panel
Obs.
(2,419)
(2,461)
(1,988)
(1,988)
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)
Total
773
(100.0)
1,215
(100.0)
1,988
(100.0)
Per cent
(38.9)
(61.1)
(100.0)
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-
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
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-
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)
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
-137-
2013
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Shortage of
capital/credit
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-
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-
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)
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-
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-
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
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-
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
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).
-143-
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
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.
-144-
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)
-145-
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
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-
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)
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-
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
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.
-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
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
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).
-149-
Lack of demand/orders
30
15
24
26
Other
23
8
7
2
5
3
3
1
2
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-
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)
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-
Micro (<10)
Small (10-49)
Medium (50-300)
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)
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)
-152-
Total
1,699
(100.0)
288
(100.0)
1,987
(100.0)
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)
-153-
Per cent
(30.7)
(69.3)
(100.0)
Firm Size
Registration
log (number of
employees)
Formal = 1
(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).
A more detailed analysis using the 2007 and 2009 data on the effects of informality (and the change from
-154-
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
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)
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-
No bribe 2013
800
(64.2)
297
(40.0)
1,097
(55.2)
Total
1,246
(100.0)
742
(100.0)
1988
(100.0)
Per cent
(62.7)
(37.3)
(100.0)
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-
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-
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-
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)
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-
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-
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-
2013
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Add to capacity
Replace old
equipment
Improve
productivity
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
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-
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-
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-
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
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)
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-
-167-
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
-168-
ISIC (4-digit)
15
20
25
28
36
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-
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)
-170-
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-
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
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-
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
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-
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-
Note: OLS. Robust standard errors. *, ** and *** indicate significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level,
respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).
-175-
Age of technology
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
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
-177-
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-
-179-
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.
-180-
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
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-
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
Secure
supply
Know
supplier
personally
Terms of
credit
-182-
Geographic
proximity
Small
Medium
Micro
Owner
18 - 24 years
25 - 35 years
Small
Medium
Manger
35 - 45 years
-183-
45 - 55 years
55 - 65 years
95.0
86.8
38.2
95.7
87.3
40.0
Unpaid
5.4
5.1
0.1
0.2
44.0
46.1
460
121
98
818
1,143
1,143
845
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-
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
457
118
95
815
0.2
0.2
0.2
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-
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-
Micro
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
(132)
of which
Observations
(694)
(1,059) (1,402)
-187-
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)
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-
Micro
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
37
34
48.1
30.3
44.1
31.7
1.1
1.1
2.3
0.8
1.4
Personal contacts
23.3
24.3
21.7
15.9
23.4
23.2
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
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-
Micro
Small
Medium
Urban
Rural
2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2013
8.3
19.5
2.4
18.8
5.8
20.0
6.9
4.0
3.1
1.7
4.8
4.1
3.3
No. of firms
12.3
7.8
564
145
132
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-
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
-191-
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
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-
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-
33,76
Senior worker
36,71
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-
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-
(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-
19.4
17.8
21.0
27.3
19.4
19.4
15.7
23.0
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
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
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-
Micro
Small
Medium
Urban
Rural
South North
25.9
7.7
62.0
98.5
39.7
14.8
33.7
19.7
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
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
26.4
9.0
58.4
93.9
41.3
14.0
34.8
19.6
51.9
38.8
77.2
98.5
72.1
35.2
69.5
37.6
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-
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
Micro
Small
Medium
Urban
Rural
42.3
50.3
41.2
35.1
37.6
44.7
34.0
30.1
33.8
39.8
30.8
35.7
19.7
13.9
22.0
20.6
26.9
16.0
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-
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-
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-
Formal
Informal
Total
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-
Sector
Yes
(%)
No
(%)
Total Yes
(%)
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.
-204-
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-
Required by officials/law
64
16
20
10
5
9
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-
2011
2013
2011
2013
All
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
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-
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
-208-
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-
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.
-210-
All
Micro
Small
Medium
Urban
Rural
Ownership
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-
Export
30
25
Percent
20
15
10
0
China
Japan
ASEAN
Other Asian
-212-
US
EU
Russia
Other (nonAsian)
-213-
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-
-215-
All
Rural
Urban
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
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-
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
-217-
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
Neighbouring province
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-
Competition
No
competition
Urban
Rural
38.3
38.1
40.0
30.0
44.6
Tourists
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.7
1.2
1.3
0.9
0.7
1.6
53.0
52.9
53.2
58.8
48.6
State enterprises
4.1
4.3
2.3
5.6
2.9
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
77.8
78.3
74.1
79.7
76.3
6.1
6.3
4.7
4.4
7.4
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.5
0.4
14.9
14.2
19.9
13.8
15.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
Other
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
-219-
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-
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
Enterprise Size
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-
-222-
-223-
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-
-225-
References
-226-
-227-
-228-
-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