Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

55

VAI TR TIP CN TN DNG TRONG HIU QU SN XUT LA CA
NNG H NG BNG SNG CU LONG, VIT NAM
Vng Quc Duy
1

1
Khoa Kinh t v Qun tr inh donh, Trng i hc Cn Th
Thng tin chung:
Ngy nhn: 30/01/2013
Ngy hp nhn: 19/06/2013

Title:
The role of access to credit in rice
production of rural households in
Mekong Delta in Vietnam
T kha:
Stochastic frontier analysis,
quntile regression, tip n tn
dng, nng h
Keywords:
Stochastic frontier analysis,
quantile regression, access to
credit, rural households
ABSTRACT
Currently, rice production in the Mekong Delta region accounts for
more thn 50% of Vietnms totl pddy prodution nd 90% of its
rice export volume. Therefore, increasing the efficiency of rice
production systems and enhancing the comparative advantage of
Vietnms rie industry hve been n importnt fous re for
policy makers and researchers for many years. Access to credit has
been identified as a key factor for improving rice production. This
fact is validated in this study by considering the production and
technical efficiency levels of rice production for a sample of farmers
in the Mekong Delta. The study focuses particularly on the effects of
both formal and informal credits on production levels and
production efficiency by using a Stochastic frontier analysis and a
quantile regression. The results confirm the positive influence of
credit on production and production efficiency. Both formal and
informal credit appear to be important.
JEL: E5, G2, O2
TM TT
Gn y, sn xut l ng bng sng Cu Long (BSCL) him
hn 50% tng sn lng l Vit Nm v 90% sn lng xut
khu. V vy, tng ng hiu qu h thng sn xut l v nng
co li th so snh ngnh ng nghip l go Vit Nm l mt
lnh v tp trung qun trng ho nh nghin u v ngi lm
hnh sh nhiu nm qu. Tip n tn dng x nh l nhn
t qun trng pht trin ngnh l go. Th t ny gi tr
nghin u ny thng qu vi xem xt m hiu qu k thut v
sn xut l ho nng h BSCL. Nghin u ny tp trung
bit vo t ng tn dng hnh th v phi hnh th ln m
sn xut v hiu qu sn xut qu vi s dng m hnh Phn
th gii hn ngu nhin (Stohsti Frontier Anlysis) v M hnh
phn v (Quntile Regression). t qu ny ng t ng thun
tn dng ln hiu qu k thut v sn xut l. C tn dng
hnh th v phi hnh th u v qun trng.


Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

56
1 GII THIU
K t khi Vit Nam a ra chnh sch i
mi vo nm 1986, chnh ph tha nhn vai
tr quan trng ca nng nghip. Ngi ta nh
gi cao s t do giao thng la go v th
trng u vo nng nghip v thc hin cc
chnh sch nhm thc y vic trng cc ging
cy trng nng sut cao. K t , Vit Nam
c kinh nghim mt s gia tng n nh
trong sn xut go v xut khu. Sn xut la
t 99 triu tn trong nm 2010 vi sn lng
go 5.32 tn / ha (GSO, 2010). Vit Nam c
xem nh l mt trong nhng quc gia xut
khu go ln t nm 1989 v nm trong s cc
nh xut khu hng u trn th gii. Trong
nm 2010, Vit Nam xut khu 6,88 triu tn
3,23 t USD, ln 15.4% trong khi lng v
21.2% so vi nm trc (GSO, 2010). Nhng
kt qu t c do cng ngh p dng
rng ri hin i ging la t cht lng cao
c s dng tng t 17% nm 1980 n gn
90% vo nm 2000 (Ut v Kajisa, 2006).
BSCL c cng nhn l va la go ln
nht ca Vit Nam chim hn 50% tng sn
lng la c nc v 90% sn lng xut khu
go quc gia (GSO, 2010), cho nn ngnh sn
xut go mang li ngun thu nhp chnh
cho nng dn trong vng. Nhng khng phi
tt c nng h u sn xut mc ti u. C
nhiu tim nng ci tin c th ng gp vo
thu nhp h gia nh nng thn v tip tc tng
li th so snh ca sn xut go ca Vit Nam.
Tham gia vo tn dng c th c quan trng
trong vic ci thin hn na ca mt h thng
nng nghip bi v n c kh nng to ra
cc vic tip cn nhiu hn vo cc yu t sn
xut (Oladeebo v Oladeebo, 2008). Rashid et
al. (2002) chng minh rng cc nng dn nh
m khng c tn dng Bangladesh giao t t
sn xut, ngay c khi cng ca cc tc
ng ca tn dng l rt nh. S sn c ca tn
dng c th nh hng n chi ph c nh sn
xut (Brambilla v Porto, 2005) v nng dn
s s dng t ht ging v phn bn nu gia
nh h b hn ch tip cn tn dng. Thng
qua cc hiu ng ca n vo sn xut, sn
lng v bao gm cc chi ph tip th, tn dng
cng c th nh hng n nng dn tham gia
vo h thng tip th v tng kh nng ca h
to ra thu nhp cao hn.
Bi bo ny nghin cu s ng gp ca tn
dng cho go sn xut v mc hiu qu k
thut. Tn dng khc vi cc ngun u vo
tr cp hoc cung cp cng ngh, v n khng
phi l ngun min ph v cc khon vay cn
phi c hon tr khi n hn (CGAP, 2006),
l l do ti sao ngi cho vay yu cu ti
sn th chp. Cc nghin cu trc y cho
thy sn xut go c quan tm vi vai tr
ca tn dng ni chung, cho d thng qua
phng php phn tch (Phn tch gii hn
ngu nhin (SFA) hoc Phn tch tip cn d
liu (DEA)). Bi bo s nghin cu nh hng
ca kinh t theo quy m qua m hnh hi quy
phn v (regression quantile). Trong khi m t
phn tch v SFA cho thy s khc bit ln
trong sn xut v hiu qu gia ngi i vay
v khng phi i vay, n l khng r rng cho
d cc hiu ng tch cc l do tip cn tn dng
hoc s khc bit trong quy m. Cc hi quy
phn v quantile khng nh rng tn dng gp
phn vo sn xut trn cc nhm sn xut khc
nhau. Bi bo ny ch yu phn bit s khc
bit ca nng h tham gia cc tn dng k c
chnh thc v khng chnh thc trong cc chc
nng sn xut go.
Phn cn li ca chng ny c xy
dng nh sau. Phn 2 trnh by cc phng
php nghin cu s dng trong nghin cu
hin nay. Kt qu thc nghim ca nghin cu
c a ra trong phn 3. Cui cng, phn 4
kt lun bi nghin cu.
2 PHNG PHP NGHIN CU
2.1 Phn tch gii hn ngu nhin (SFA)
SFA, ban u c xut bi Meeusen v
Vandenbroeck (1977) v sa i bi Jondrow
et al. (1982), l phng php ph bin trong
vic xc nh mc hiu qu kinh t nng
nghip cho d liu cho. N xc nh mi
quan h gia u ra v u vo mc s
dng hai thut ng li. Mt li thi hn l mt
thut ng li bnh thng truyn thng trong
c ngha l zero v phng sai l hng s.
Phng php khc l khng hiu qu k thut
Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

57
cp, th hin nh l mt bnh thng mt na,
ct ngn bnh thng, m hoc hai tham s
gamma phn phi (Coelli, 1996). Cc iu
khon hai li trong d ton ti a kh nng ca
cc chc nng sn xut xc nh mc khng
hiu qu.
Trong mt SFA, sn lng Yi l hm ca
cc bin u vo Xi nh sau (Greene, 2008)
Y
i
= f(x
i
; ) +
i
= f(x
i
;) + (v
i
u
i
) i= 1...N (1)
Trong Yi l sn lng la (nng sut sn
xut la) ca nng h th i-th v Xi l mt
vector 1xK chuyn i s lng u vo ca
cc nng h i-th. Hm f(.) thng l mt cng
ngh sn xut Cobb-Douglas hoc cng ngh
translog. C hai hnh thc chc nng c s
dng rng ri trong cc ti liu (Thiam v tv.,
2001). Cc hnh thc ca Cobb-Douglas v
Translog c th c th hin nh sau (Van
Passel et al., 2009):
Hm Cobb-Douglas chc:
0
1
log( ) log( )
n
i k ik i i
k
y x v u | |
=
= + +

(2)
Hm Translog:
2
0
1 1
log( ) log( ) (log( )
n n
i k ik kk ik
k k
y x x | | |
= =
= + + +

1
(log( ).log( ))
n
k t ik it i i
k
x x v u | |
=
+

(3)
Bi vit ny gi nh mt m hnh Cobb-
Douglas. Mt c im k thut ca translog
s yu cu mt mu ln hn.
Cc thut ng li trong phng trnh (1)
gm c hai thnh phn (Seehofer v tv.,
1977): i = vi-ui
Trong : v
i
l cc thnh phn i xng m
n ti khon cho cc bin th ngu nhin ra do
cc yu t ngoi tm kim sot ca nng dn
chng hn nh thi tit v bnh v gi nh
c c lp v ht phn phi vi N (0, v2);
U
i
l k thut khng hiu qu trong sn
xut v cng c gi nh c lp v ht phn
phi khng m truncation phn phi N (,
u2). Trong bi ny, chng ti gi nh u
i
c
mt na-bnh thng phn phi theo quy nh
ca Greene (2008).
SFA cng cho php c tnh ca cc yu t
quyt nh mc TE, mt m hnh khng hiu
qu. Bin u
i
, c tnh khng hiu qu k thut
ca h gia nh, c biu din nh mt hm
ca cc c im kinh t x hi ca h gia
nh Z nh sau (Coelli, 1996):
0
1
n
i i i
i
u Z o o
=
= +

(4)
M hnh SF cho php chng ti c tnh
tham s v li chun, kim tra gi thuyt bng
cch s dng cc phng php ti a kh
nng. Cc tham s vect v c c tnh
cng vi cc tham s phng sai:
2 2 2
u v
o o o + = and
2 2
2
2 2
/
u v
u
u
o o
o
o o
+
= = .
Chng trnh gii hn (frontier) 4.1 vit bi
Coelli et al. (1998) c s dng c tnh
SFA trong.
2.2 Hi qui phn v (Quantile)
Cc m hnh Cobb-Douglas c tnh trong
SFA khng cho php phn b cho sn xut quy
m phng. kim tra tc dng quy m sn
xut v kim tra nu nh hng ca tn dng
khc nhau trn quy m sn xut, mt hi quy
phn v c s dng m hnh hi qui phn v
u tin c gii thiu bi Koenker v
Bassett (1978) v c pht trin trong
Koenker v Hallock (2001). Quantile th cho
bin ngu nhin X c nh ngha l gi tr
m, l kh nng X nh hn m. Ton hc,
iu ny tr nn (Koenker v Hallock, 2001):
= Pr[X
s
m] = F(m) (5)
l hm phn b tch ly ca X. Gi tr
M^

cho quantile mu c th c bt ngun

bng cch s dng nghch o ca hm phn
b tch ly, l cc chc nng ca quantile Q(),
theo cc gi nh ca mt chc nng phn phi
cht ch, lin tc, c th l (Koenker v
Hallock, 2001):
m^ = F-1() = Q() = inf { X R: 0 F(X )} (6)
Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

58
vi {} inf nh ngha l b rng buc di
ln nht ca m^i. V vy, cc chc nng
Q() tr v gi tr thp nht m c cho l
ng s tht.
Cc m hnh thut ng quantile c s
dng phn bit gia s lng cc tp con
bng kch thc c s dng. V d, bn
quantiles cp n quartile ( = 0,25; 0.5;
0,75 v 0,95) v tr, phn chia d liu thit lp
thnh bn kch thc bng nhm. Quantile
cch 0.5 l trung bnh.
2.3 D liu nghin cu
D liu c s dng trong bi vit ny
c rt ra t mt cuc iu tra h gia nh
trn tiu chun sng ti Vit Nam, cc cuc
kho st sng tiu chun Vit Nam-VLSS
2008. Cc cuc kho st c thc hin bi
Tng cc thng k Vit Nam (GSO) trong nm
2008, ti tr ca chng trnh pht trin Lin
hip quc (UNDP) v Thy in quc t pht
trin hp tc quyn (SIDA) vi s h tr k
thut t ngn hng th gii. N thu thp thng
tin thng qua cc cng ng v cu hi cp h
gia nh. Cc cu hi h gia nh c chia
thnh 9 phn bao gm nhn khu hc c bn,
tham gia lc lng lao ng v vic lm, gio
dc, y t, thu nhp, chi ph, nh , ti sn c
nh v hng ha lu bn v thit ch to cc
chng trnh tham gia vo gim ngho.
Vic la chn cc mu 45,945 h gia nh,
tt c theo mt phng php ly mu phn
tng ngu nhin cm ca 3,063 th trn/lng ti
Vit Nam thc hin d liu i din cho
mc quc gia, nng thn, thnh th v khu
vc. Cc mu ny c chia lm hai nhm
mu: mt mu vi 9,189 h gia nh v khc
vi 36,756 h gia nh (GSO, 2008). T cc
mu c, thng tin chi tit cn thit cho h gia
nh tiu chun sng phn tch mc quc
gia v khu vc c tp hp; t cc mu
sau n khng.
Nh bi vit ny tp trung vo sn xut go
ca h gia nh BSCL, vi 654 s mu h
gia nh trong khu vc ny c la chn
t cc h gia nh 9,189. Cc tiu ch la
chn l ni c tr vng BSCL, sn xut
go v tnh kh dng ca cc thng tin y
chi tit v sn phm ny. D liu bao gm
thng tin trn h gia nh, tip cn cc tin ch,
cc nh hng th trng v rt quan trng l
u vo v u ra sn xut la go (Bng 1).
Bng 1: Xc nh v o lng cc bin
Bin n v tnh Xc nh
Nng sut la (Y) Tn Sn lng la sn xut ra
Din tch la (X1) Ha Din tch t trng la
Ging (X2) 1.000 ng/ha Chi ph mua ging
Phn bn (X3) 1.000 ng/ha Chi ph phn bn
Thuc tr su (X4) 1.000 ng/ha Chi ph mua thuc tr su
Lao ng thu (X5) 1.000 ng/ha Chi ph thu lao ng
My mc thu (X6) 1.000 ng/ha Chi ph thu cng c lm t v ct la
3 KT QU V THO LUN
Bng 2 so snh cc c tnh h gia nh v
trang tri ca ngi i vay v khng phi i
vay. Bng ny cho thy rng khng c s khc
bit gia hai nhm trong iu khon ca tui,
kinh nghim sn xut nng nghip v kch c
gia nh. Ngi ng u gia nh ca nhm
vay trung bnh c trnh gio dc cao hn.
Go c sn xut trong nhm bn vay l cao
hn ng k so vi nhm khng vay. Ngi i
vay trng nhiu go v chi tiu nhiu hn cho
u vo sn xut go chng hn nh phn bn,
thuc tr su v cc thit b thu hn nhm
khng i vay ngoi tr chi ph trn ht ging.
Ngoi ra, cc c tnh gia nh ca ngi i
vay v khng phi i vay khc nhau khng
ng k cho bt k cc bin nh phn ngoi tr
dn tc Vit v vic p dng cc cng ngh
mi, ni, khng ngc nhin, t l phn trm p
dng khoa hc cng ngh mi gia ngi i
vay v ngi khng vay kh ln (Bng 3).

Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

59
Bng 2: Thuc tnh ca nng h vay v khng vay vn
Bin c lp (n) H khng vay (312) H vay vn (342) t- test
tui trung bnh (nm) 52,894 (0,799) 51,169 (0,727) 1,599
S ngi trong h (ngi) 4,462 (0,097) 4,552 (0,085) -0,7078
Kinh nghim trong SX nng nghip (nm) 24,840 (0,679) 23,588 (0,608) 1,377
Trnh hc vn (nm) 5,644 (0,186) 6,900 (0,194) -4,673***
Nng sut la (tn) 21,675 (1,262) 42,633 (2,294) -7,797***
Nng sut/ha (tn/ha) 5,102 (1,377) 5,584 (3,672) -2,182*
Din tch trng la (ha) 4,819 (8,225) 7,943 (7,261) 5,158***
Chi ph ging (1,000 ng) 2.010 (247.428) 2.194 (193,290) -0,137
Chi ph phn bn (1,000ng) 9.747 (892.09) 11.503 (1.183) -1,167
Chi ph thuc su (1,000 ng) 3.494 (387,763) 4.887 (623,019) -1,857 **
Lao ng thu ( 1,000 ng) 3.990 (896,371) 3.310 (387,573) 0,718
My mc thu (1,000 ng) 9.733 (1.115) 13.223 (1.513) -1,828 **
Khong cch n trung tm th trng (m) 1.603 (42,668) 1.569 (40,113) 0,569
Ghi h: *** ngh 1%, ** ngh 5%; * ngh 10%
Bng 3: Thuc tnh ca h vay v khng vay vn (bin phn trm)
Bin c lp (n) H khng vay (312) H vay vn (342) X2- test
Gii tnh (%nam) 80,13 81,58 0,22
Dn tc Kinh (%) 93,07 90,26 2,18*
K thut sn xut mi (%tham gia) 16,35 93,86 399,69***
Tip cn in (%tham gia) 98,72 98,25 0,24
Cn Th (%) 4,49 3,51 0,41
Ghi h: *** ngh 1%, ** ngh 5%; * ngh 10%
Cc ngun v cc c tnh ca tn dng
c trnh by trong Bng 4. Hu ht ngi i
vay (68%) a ra mt khon vay t mt t
chc ti chnh chnh thc (ngn hng Nng
nghip v Pht trin Nng thn hay Vit Nam
Ngn hng chnh sch x hi). Khong 30%
ca nhng ngi i vay c mt khon vay t
cc ngun khng chnh thc nh ngi cho
vay c nhn, bn b v ngi thn. 2% Cn li
c mt khon vay t ngi cho vay bn chnh
thc chng hn nh qu to vic lm v cc
Hip t chc chnh tr x hi. c mt s
khc bit gia cho vay c im gia cc nh
cung cp. Trung bnh khon cho vay t ngun
chnh thc ln hn vi nhng ngi ca cc
ngun tn dng khc. Ngun khng chnh thc
cho vay tr li sut cao hn ngun chnh thc.
Nh nu trn, cc chc nng sn xut
c phn tch cho bn nhm sn xut go
(Bng 5). Nhm 95 chim u th khc nhm
i vi tt c cc bin trong cc m hnh. Tui
tc v gio dc thp cho cc h gia nh trong
nhm 25. H gia nh trong cc nhm cao hn
s dng nhiu u vo. c bit, nhng
ngi trong nhm 95 chi tiu hn trn cc
u vo hn nhm khc bi mt nhn t ca 3-
30 ty thuc vo loi u vo.
Bng 4: Ngun v thuc tnh vn vay
Ngun v thuc tnh vn vay n v tnh Chnh thc
Bn chnh
thc
Phi chnh
thc
F-Test
Lng vn trung bnh 1000 ng 29.635
(49.596)
10.214
(6.903)
19.844
(28.047)
2,27***
Li sut %/nm 16
(7,211)
8,40
(2,003)
26,00
(31,941)
12,74***
K hn Thng 16
(12,778)
19
(17,904)
14
(9,712)
2,67**
S ngi vay n 232 8 108 342
Phn trm % 68 2 30 100
Ghi h: *** ngh 1%, ** ngh 5%; * ngh 10%; lch chun trong du ngoc
Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

60
Bng 5: Thuc tnh ca nng h theo nhm
Bin c lp Trung bnh lch Q25 Q50 Q75 Q95
Nng sut la (tn) 32,634 35,869 11,760 23,899 42,000 86,220
Din tch la (ha) 6,453 7,886 2,970 4,680 7,500 17,520
Nng sut/ha (tn) 5,057 4,548 3,960 5,107 5,60 4,921
Chi ph (1000 ng/ha)
Ging 2.106 3.972 523 1.165 2.361 6.490
Phn bn 10.665 19.219 2.315 5.400 11.234 39.802
Thuc su 4.222 9.599 595 1.603 4.284 16.032
Lao ng thu 3.635 12.096 500 1.612 3.904 10.738
My mc thu 11.558 24.433 2.971 5.881 11.969 34.401
tui trung bnh (nm) 51,99 13,78 42 50 61 77
Trnh hc vn (nm) 5,15 3,11 3 5 8 12
S ngi trong h (ngi) 4,51 1,64 3 4 5 7
Kinh nghim SXNN (nm) 24,18 11,63 15 23 33 43
Bng 6 cho kt qu ti a kh nng c
tnh (MLE) ca nhng m hnh gia nh vi
bin gi cho cc h gia nh tham gia tn dng
chnh thc v khng chnh thc. Hiu qu k
thut trung bnh sn xut go l khong 85%.
iu ny ng rng ngi nng dn vn c
kh nng ci thin hiu sut ca h trung
bnh 15%. Kt qu tng t c tm thy
bi Awotide v Adejobi (2006) v Nguyn
(2003), mc d mc tnh hiu qu lin quan
n gii hn ca cc h gia nh ly mu.
Trong chc nng Cobb-Douglas, h s ca khu
vc vi go v chi tiu v thuc tr su
ngha thng k. Cc m hnh cho thy s
khng hiu qu k thut sn xut go gn lin
vi c im gia nh (gio dc cp), cng
ngh (s dng cng ngh trang tri mi), th
trng nh hng (khong cch t cc h gia
nh ni th trng trung tm), v tr (tnh
Cn Th) v tip cn vo tn dng chnh thc
hoc khng chnh thc. iu ny ng rng
hiu qu sn xut go c quan h thun chiu
vi trnh hc vn ca ch h, s dng k
thut mi, h gia nh t tnh Cn Th v h
xa Trung tm th trng. Tn dng chnh thc
v khng chnh thc dng nh tng hiu qu
trang tri. H s tui trung bnh, gia nh kch
thc, kinh nghim nng nghip, dn tc Vit
Nam v gii tnh ca h gia nh tc ng
khng ng k. Cc bi kim tra t l kh nng
ca mt pha tng qut li vt qu gi tr
quan trng ( = 5 phn trm), gi rng gi
thuyt khng hiu qu k thut sn xut go
trong mu s b t chi.
Bng 7 s cho kt qu phn tch nhm kinh
t theo quy m. Sn lng go ca tt c nhm
b nh hng tch cc ng k ca khu vc vi
go, chi tiu v thuc tr su (ngoi tr nhm
95), trnh hc vn ca ngi ng u gia
nh (ngoi tr nhm 95) v s dng cng
ngh nui mi. Hn na, cho tt c nhm, tip
cn vo tn dng, c hai chnh thc v khng
chnh thc ng gp ng k cho sn xut. Sn
lng go ca nhm 50 b nh hng tch cc
bi tui, dn tc Kinh, ngi ng u gia
nh, cc chi ph cao hn trn thu lao ng v
v tr tnh Cn Th. H s bin gi truy
cp vo tn dng chnh thc v khng chnh
thc xc nhn rng ngi i vay c nhiu kh
nng c kt qu sn xut go cao hn khng
phi i vay. H s hp th chnh thc tn dng
ln hn nhng ngi khng chnh thc tn
dng truy cp cc chc nng ca quantile 25
v 95 v nh hn cc chc nng ca nhm 50
v 75, nhng s khc bit khng ln.
Mt vi gii thch cho kt qu m hnh trn
c th c trnh by nh sau. Trc tin, H
s tip cn tn dng nh hng thun chiu
ng k n m hnh hi quy khng hiu qu
k thut v tc ng quan trng n m hnh
hi quy nhm kinh t theo quy m. iu ny
ng rng tip cn tn dng c kh nng
tng hiu qu k thut ca nng dn go.
Trong thc t, cc kh khn ti chnh trong
nng nghip c kh nng c thuyn gim
thng qua cc tn dng, cho php vic mua
thm cc yu t u vo v ln lt c th tng
doanh thu v li nhun (Hyuha v tv., 2007).
Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

61
Cc khon tin b sung t th trng tn dng
c th c s dng u t trong sn xut
la go, ch yu bng vic p dng cng ngh
mi (Nuryartono. et al., 2005). Nuryartono
(2005) cng cho thy rng tip cn th trng
ti chnh to iu kin thng qua cng ngh
chng hn nh phn bn v thuc tr su.
Trong m hnh khng hiu qu, H s truy cp
vo tn dng chnh thc l ln hn so vi tn
dng khng chnh thc, gi rng tip cn tn
dng chnh thc c mt tc ng ln hn
hiu qu sn xut go. Cc kt qu phi ph
hp vi Kebede (2001); Nwaru (2001);
Ajibefund v Aderinola (2003); Nguyn
(2003); Ogundari (2008).
Bng 6: c lng SFA v mc hiu qu sn xut la
M hnh SFA model
H s sn xut n v tnh H s lch chun T s t
Bin c lp (Log):
Hng s 0 1,2940*** 0,1814 7,1352
Din tch la (ha) 1 0,7405*** 0,0623 11,8806
Ging (1,000 ng) 2 -0,0728 0,0501 -1,4521
Phn bn (1,000 ng) 3 -0,0329 0,0456 -0,7231
Thuc su (1,000 ng) 4 0,0625** 0,0318 1,9654
Lao ng thu (1,000 ng) 5 0,0325 0,0281 1,1552
My mc thu (1,000 ng) 6 -0,0193 0,0425 -0,4537
2 0,0478 0,0066 7,2593
0,0787 0,1536 0,5125
Log Likelihood 61,8561
M hnh tc ng khng hiu qu
tui trung bnh (nm) 1 -0,0233 0,1139 -0,2041
S ngi trong h (ngi) 2 -0,0076 0,0958 -0,0796
Kinh nghim SXNN (nm) 3 0,0534 0,0699 0,7640
Trnh hc vn (nm) 4 -0,1088* 0,0612 -1,7787
Dn tc Kinh (yes=1) 5 0,0554 0,0630 0,8793
Gii tnh (Nam=1) 6 0,0147 0,0411 0,3577
K thut SX mi (yes=1) 7 -0,1289** 0,0468 -2,7566
Tn dng chnh thc (yes=1) 8 -0,4735** 0,1817 -2,6053
Tn dng phi chnh thc (yes=1) 9 -0,2995** 0,1146 -2,6128
Cn Th (yes=1) 10 -0,1904** 0,0761 -2,5009
Khong cch n th trng (1,000 m) 11 0,1124* 0,0647 1,7384
u2 0,0038
v2 0,0369
TE 0,8505
LR kim nh li mt bn 302,5701
Ghi h: *** ngh 1%, ** ngh 5%; * ngh 10%
Th hai, h s s dng k thut sn xut
mi v trnh gio dc nh hng quan trng
tch cc n m hnh hiu qu k thut v tch
cc quan trng trong hi qui nhm kinh t theo
quy m (ngoi tr nhm ln). Gio dc c th
tng cng vic mua li v s dng thng tin
trn cng ngh ci thin v tinh thn kinh
doanh ca h (Coelli v Battese, 1996; Dey et
al., 2000; Effiong, 2005; Onyenweaku et al.,
2005; Idiong, 2006). Tm quan trng ca vic
gii thiu cc cng ngh mi vo sn xut
cng c xc nhn.
Th ba, cc du c hai m hnh ca h s
khong cch t h gia nh th trng
ngh rng cc h gia nh trong vng su vng
xa nhiu kh nng c hiu qu k thut v
sn lng go. Tin nghi thng tin lin lc v
vn ti km c th dn n lm gim mc
hiu qu ca h gia nh tip tc ra khi th
trng trung tm. Kt qu ny ph hp vi
Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

62
nhng ngi trong cc nghin cu ca
Lanzona v Evenson (1997); DeSilva et al.
(2006); Larson v Plessmann (2009).
Hn na, cc nng dn tnh Cn Th c
mc sn xut v hiu qu cao hn so vi
nhng ngi cc tnh khc. La nng nghip
tnh ny mang li li ch khng ch t th
tinh t nhin c cung cp bi sng tin v
sng hu, nhng cng t s h tr ca hai
trung tm khoa hc nng nghip ln nht ca
vng BSCL, c th l i hc Cn Th v
Vin La BSCL.
Bng 7: Kt qu nhm theo quy m ca h sn xut la
n
v
Q25 Q50 Q75 Q95
Hng s 0 0,221 0,280 1,027*** 1,048*
(0,97) (1,12) (3,44) (1,73)
Din tch la (ha) 1 0,760*** 0,698*** 0,718*** 0,803***
(12,83) (11,30) (10,35) (5,65)
Ging (1,000 dongs) 2 -0,058 -0,025 -0,042 -0,146
(-1,20) (-0,46) (-0,66) (-1,17)
Phn bn (1,000 dongs) 3 -0,009 0,060 -0,036 -0,095
(-0,19) (1,21) (-0,65) (-1,02)
Thuc su (1,000 dongs) 4 0,128*** 0,103*** 0,080** -0,020
(4,34) (3,10) (2,03) (-0,24)
Lao ng thu (1,000 dongs) 5 0,009 -0,001 0,029 0,029
(0,37) (-0,00) (0,84) (0,41)
My mc thu (1,000 dongs) 6 -0,027 -0,079* -0,091 0,052
(-0,71) (-1,71) (-1,64) (0,41)
tui trung bnh (years) 1 0,131* 0,173* 0,104 0,186
(1,81) (2,01) (0,98) (0,71)
S ngi trong h (persons) 2 -0,0249 -0,064 -0,071 -0,033
(-0,47) (-1,18) (-1,13) (-0,24)
Kinh nghim SX la (years) 3 -0,049 -0,018 -0,038 -0,028
(-1,40) (-0,47) (-0,84) (-0,30)
Trnh hc vn (nm) 4 0,099*** 0,106** 0,157*** 0,141
(3,51) (3,17) (3,40) (1,25)
Dn tc Kinh (yes=1) 5 0,048 0,056* -0,085* -0,057
(1,58) (1,68) (-2,22) (-0,73)
Gii tnh (Nam=1) 6 0,016 0,004 -0,038 -0,034
(0,74) (0,16) (-1,31) (-0,60)
Cng ngh SX mi (yes=1) 7 0,101*** 0,092*** 0,086* 0,200***
(3,66) (3,07) (2,24) (3,29)
Tn dng chnh thc (yes=1) 8 0,111*** 0,189*** 0,249*** 0,334***
(3,94) (6,23) (6,69) (7,01)
Tn dng phi chnh thc
(yes=1)
9
0,097** 0,223*** 0,319*** 0,274***
(2,99) (6,44) (7,73) (4,34)
Cn Th (yes=1) 10 0,079* 0,076* 0,0807 0,025
(1,85) (1,66) (1,45) (0,21)
Khong cch n th trng
(1,000 m)
11
0,014 0,067 0,068 0,019
(0,32) (1,41) (1,24) (0,16)
N 654 654 654 654
Pseudo R-square 0,605 0,526 0,481 0,473
Min sum of deviations 78,972 105,675 87,031 28,463
Ghi h: *** ngh 1%, ** ngh 5%; * ngh 10%; Gi tr t trong du ngoc
Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

63
4 KT LUN
Bi bo ny khm ph hiu qu k thut v
nng sut la nng dn BSCL ca Vit
Nam bng cch s dng m hinhd SFA v
Quantile. Yu t quyt nh gii hn ngu
nhin sn xut th nghim bao gm vng t
c s dng cho go v chi tiu trn ht
ging, thu lao ng, phn bn, thuc tr su
v thu my. H s ca din tch trng go v
chi tiu v thuc tr su c du hiu d kin
(nh h lm trong cc nghin cu ca
Coelli v Battese (1996); Kyi v Oppen
(1999); Wadud v trng (2000); Jaforullah v
Premachandra (2003); Nguyn (2003);
Ogundari (2008)). Hiu qu k thut v sn
lng go b sa nh hng tch cc bi tn
dng, c im h gia nh (mc gio dc
ca ngi ng u gia nh), a bn ca h
gia nh (v tr tnh Cn Th v gn trung
tm th trng gn nht), cng ngh sn xut
nng nghip (s dng cng ngh trng trt
mi v chi tiu v thuc tr su) v din tch
trng la go. Ngoi ra, ngi i vay l tng
i giu c hn khng phi i vay, mc d cc
hi quy quantile xc nhn rng tn dng tch
cc ng gp sn xut trong s cc nh sn
xut nh hn l tt.
Cc kt qu ca nghin cu ny c mt s
ngha, c bit l i vi kh nng tip cn tn
dng. H ch ra rng tip cn tn dng chnh
thc c mt tc ng ln hn hiu qu sn
xut go hn s hp thu ca tn dng khng
chnh thc. Tn dng chnh thc c quy nh
trong khi tn dng khng chnh thc l khng
v d dng hn tip cn. S m rng hn
na ca h thng nng thn tn dng c th
nng cao v ng gp cho go tng sn xut v
hiu qu vng BSCL. c a ra trong
phm vi gii hn ca chnh ph tn dng
chng trnh BSCL, kh nng tip cn n
tn dng ca h gia nh nng thn c th c
ci thin bng cch thit lp thm chi nhnh
ca nng nghip v cng ng ngn hng
trong khu vc nng thn, cung cp tn dng
sng to cc k hoch khc phc cc vn
ca nng dn nng h nh, nhng ngi thiu
ti sn th chp bng cch gim hin nay di
x l thi gian ca ng dng vn vay v cc
yu cu khc. Ngoi ra, quyn truy cp vo tn
dng c th c thc hin d dng hn cho
nng dn khng c yu cu c th hng ha.
Hn na, tn dng phi p ng cc nhu cu
ca nng dn, c bit cho u t vo cc hot
ng trang tri.
Nng cao nhn thc tn dng v s thnh
lp ca cc t chc nng dn mnh m v kh
thi (v d nh cc hp tc x hoc Hip hi tn
dng) m c th ng mt vai tr hng u
trong vic tng nng dn quyn tip cn tn
dng l quan trng. Tng t nh vy, vn
ng chng trnh tit kim nn c pht
trin v nng cao trong khu vc kho st, iu
ny s truyn cm hng cho s tham gia v
cung cp khuyn khch cho nng dn tit
kim v ti u t. Chng trnh tit kim
cng lm gim cc chi ph theo di cho vay.
Nhiu khch hng nng thn ca cc
chng trnh tn dng chnh thc thiu cc k
nng o to v hn ch trong vic tip cn th
trng v cng ngh. V vy, khi cc h gia
nh c th tip cn tn dng u t vo mt
doanh nghip hin ti hoc bt u mt ci
mi, tnh bn vng ca cc hot ng c th
tr thnh vn . V vy, n l rt quan trng
cho cc t chc ti chnh to iu kin hoc
trc tip lin quan n mnh trong "tn dng +
" cc dch v c th bao gm k nng pht
trin/o to, tip th tin nghi v dch v pht
trin kinh doanh cho khch hng ca h
gip h duy tr cc hot ng kinh t c h
tr bi chng trnh ti chnh ca h. n mt
mc tng qut hn, gio dc l cn thit
ci thin mc hiu qu. iu ny cng c
th lm tng vic s dng cc cng ngh nng
nghip mi, ng mt vai tr quan trng trong
sn xut la. Mt d n nghin cu trong
tng lai nn tp trung vo tc ng ca s can
thip ca dch v bn ngoi trn la nng
nghip qua d liu phn tch bng (panel data).
TI LIU THAM KHO
1. Ajibefund, I. A. and A. Aderinola (2003).
Determinants of technical efficiency and
policy implications in traditional agricultural
production: empirical study of Nigerian food
crop farmers. Work in progress report
Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

64
presented at the bi-Annual research Workshop
of AERC, May 24-29th. Nairobi Kenya.
2. Awotide, D. O. and A. O. Adejobi (2006).
"Technical Efficiency and Cost of production
of Plantain farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria."
Moor Journal of Agricultural Research 7(2):
107-113.
3. Brambilla, I. and G. G. Porto (2005). Farm
Productivity and Market Structure: Evidence
From Cotton Reforms in Zambia. Access on
29/03/2012 at: http://www.depeco.econo.unlp
.edu.ar/semi/semi030605.pdf
4. CGAP (2006). Commercial Loan Agreements
A Technical Guide for Microfinance
Institutions. Consultative Group to Assist the
Poor Prepared for CGAP by Cleary, Gottlieb,
Steen & Hamilton, LLP.
5. Coelli, T. (1996). A Guide to FRONTIER
Version 4.1: A Computer Program for
Stochastic Frontier Production and Cost
Function Estimation. CEPA Working Paper
96/07, Centre for Efficiency and Productivity
Analysis, University of New England,
Armidale, NSW, 2351.
6. Coelli, T. and G. Battese (1996).
"Identification of factors which influence the
technical inefficiency of Indian farmers."
Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics
40(2): 103-128.
7. DeSilva, S., R. E. Evenson. and A. Kimhi.
(2006). "Labor Supervision and Institutional
Conditions: Evidence from Bicol Rice Farms."
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
88(4): 851-865.
8. Dey, M. M., F. J. Paraguas, G. B. Bimbaa and
P. B. Ragaspi (2000). "Technical efficiency of
tilapia growth out pond operations in the
Philippines." Agricultural Economics and
Management 4(1-2): 33-46.
9. Effiong, E. O. (2005). "Efficiency of
production in selected livestock enterprises in
Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria." Unpublished PhD
Dissertation. Michael Okpara University of
Agriculture, Umudike. .
10. Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric Analysis.
6th ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
11. GSO (2008). General Statistics Office
Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2007.
Statistical Publishing House, Vietnam, Hanoi.
12. GSO (2010). General Statictics Office:
Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2009 (in
Vietnamese). Statistical Publishing House,
Hanoi.
13. Hyuha, T. S., B. Bashaasha, E. Nkonya and D.
Kraybill (2007). "Analysis Of Profit
Inefficiency In Rice Production in Eastern And
Northern Uganda." African Crop Science
Journal 15(4): 243-253.
14. Idiong, I. C. (2006). "Evaluation of technical,
allocative, and economic efficiencies in rice
production systems in cross river state,
Nigeria. ." Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation.
Michael Okpara University of Agriculture,
Umudike.
15. Jaforullah, M. and E. Premachandra (2003)
"Sensitivity of technical efficiency estimates of
estimation approaches: An investigation using
New Zealand dairy University of Otago."
Economics Discussions Papers 0306. New
Zealand.
16. Jondrow, J. C., A. K. Lovell, S. Materov and
P. Schmidt (1982). "On the estimation of
technical implications in traditional
agricultural production: inefficiency in the
stochastic frontier production empirical study
of Nigerian food crop farmers function
model." Journal Economic 19: 233-238.
17. Kebede, T. A. (2001). Farm household
technical efficiency: a stochastic frontier
analysis a study of rice producers in Mardi-
Watershed in the Western Development
Region of Nepal.
18. Koenker, R. and K. F. Hallock (2001).
"Quantile Regression." Journal of Economic
Perspectives 15(4): 143-156.
19. Lanzona, L. A. and R. E. Evenson (1997). The
Effects of Transaction Costs on Labor Market
Participation and Earnings: Evidence from
Rural Philippine Markets. Center Discussion
Paper No. 790. Economic Growth Center: Yale
University.
20. Larson, D. F. and F. Plessmann (2009). "Do
Farmers Choose To Be Inefficient? Evidence
from Bicol." Journal of Development
Economics 90(1): 24-32.
21. Meeusen, W. and J. Vandenbroeck (1977).
"Efficiency Estimation From Cobb-Douglas
Production Functions With Composed Error."
International Economic Review 18(2): 435-
445.
22. Nguyen, T. M. H. (2003). "A Study on
Technical Efficiency of Rice Production in
Tp h ho h Trng i h Cn Th Phn D: Khoa h Chnh tr, Kinh t v Php lut: 26 (2013): 55-65

65
The Mekong Delta-Vietnam by Stochastic
Frontier Analysis." Journal of the Faculty of
Agriculture Kyushu University 48: 325-357.
23. Nuryartono, N. (2005). Impact of
Smallholders' access to Land and Credit
Markets on Technology Adoption and Land
Uses Decision: The Case of Tropical Forest
Margins in Central Sulawesi Indonesia. PhD
Thesis.
24. Nuryartono., N., M. Zeller. and S. Schwarze.
(2005). Credit Rationing of Farm Households
and Agricultural production: Empirical
Evidence in the Rural Areas of Central
Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tropentag 2005 Stuttgart-
Hohenheim, October 11-13, 2005
25. Conference on International Agricultural
Research for Development, Institut of Rural
Development. Georg August University of
Goettingen.
26. Nwaru, J. C. (2001). "Gender and Relative
Production Efficiency in Food Crop Farming
in Abia State of Nigeria." The Nigerian
Agricultural Journal 34: 1-10.
27. Ogundari, K. (2008). "Resource-productivity,
allocative efficiency and determinants of
technical efficiency of rainfed rice farmers: A
guide for food security policy in Nigeria."
Agricultural Economics-Zemedelska
Ekonomika 54(5): 224-233.
28. Oladeebo, J. O. and O. E. Oladeebo (2008).
"Determinants of Loan Repayment among
Smallholder Farmers in Ogbomoso
Agricultural Zone of Oyo State, Nigeria."
Journal Social Science 17(1): 59-62.
29. Onyenweaku, C. E., K. C. Igwe and J. A.
Mbanasor (2005). "Application of a stochastic
frontier production function to the
measurement of technical efficiency in yam
production in Nasarawa State, Nigeria."
Journal of Sustainable Tropical Agricultural
Research 13: 20-25.
30. Rashid, S., M. Sharma and M. Zeller (2002)
"Micro-lending for small farmers in
Bangladesh: Does it affect farm households
land allocation decisions?" MSSD Discussion
Paper 45, International Food Policy Research
Institute. .
31. Thiam, A., B. E. Bravo-Ureta and T. E. Rivas
(2001). "Technical efficiency in developing
country agriculture: A meta-analysis,."
Agricultural Economics 25: 235-243.
32. Ut, T. T. and K. Kajisa (2006). "The impact of
Green Revolution on rice production in
Vietnam." Developing Economies 44(2): 167-
189.
33. Van Passel, S., G. Van Huylenbroeck, L.
Lauwers and E. Mathijs (2009). "Sustainable
value assessment of farms using frontier
efficiency benchmarks." Journal of
Environmental Management 90(10): 3057-
3069.
34. Wadud, A. and B. White (2000). "Farm
household efficiency in Bangladesh: A
comparison of stochastic frontier and DEA
methods." Applied Economics 32(13): 1665-
1673.