2011 SME Report - Final

C IM MI TRNG
KINH DOANH VIT NAM

KT QU IU TRA DOANH NGHIP NH V VA NM 2011
CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER

Thng 11 nm 2012
c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam
Mc lc
Danh mc cc bng.....................................................................................................ii
Danh mc cc hnh...................................................................................................... v
Danh mc t vit tt...................................................................................................vi
Li ni u................................................................................................................... 1
Li cm n................................................................................................................... 3
1 Gii thiu..................................................................................................................... 4
2 M t s liu v chn mu........................................................................................... 7
2.1 Chn mu..................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Thc hin iu tra...................................................................................................... 16
2.3 Lin kt vi cc cuc iu tra trc.......................................................................... 17
3 Tng trng v nng ng doanh nghip.................................................................. 18
3.1 Tng trng vic lm................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Doanh nghip thot khi th trng........................................................................... 23
4 Quan liu, phi chnh thc v cc chi ph phi chnh thc........................................... 28
4.1 Phi chnh thc, tng trng v thot khi th trng................................................ 28
4.2 Thu v cc chi ph phi chnh thc............................................................................ 30
5 a dng ha, ci tin v nng sut lao ng............................................................. 35
5.1 a dng ha v ci tin............................................................................................. 35
5.2 Cc c tnh ca nng sut lao ng......................................................................... 40
6 u t v tip cn tn dng........................................................................................ 43
6.1 u t........................................................................................................................ 43
6.2 Tn dng..................................................................................................................... 46
7 Vic lm..................................................................................................................... 51
7.1 C cu lc lng lao ng v tnh n nh............................................................... 51
7.2 Gio dc, o to, iu kin lm vic v phng php tuyn dng.......................... 55
7.3 Cng on.................................................................................................................. 61
7.4 Xy dng mc lng, phc li x hi v hp ng.................................................. 66
8 Nng lc ca doanh nghip....................................................................................... 75
8.1 c im ca ch s hu........................................................................................... 75
8.2 Hot ng v s tn ti ca doanh nghip................................................................. 80
8.3 u t, ci tin v ng dng cng ngh.................................................................... 85
8.4 Trnh hc vn ca lc lng lao ng.................................................................. 89
8.5 Nng sut lao ng.................................................................................................... 91
9 Mng li x hi....................................................................................................... 94
9.1 Cu thnh mng li kinh doanh ca doanh nghip................................................. 94
9.2 Thnh vin ca hip hi doanh nghip.................................................................... 100
9.3 Vai tr cc mi quan h i vi hot ng v tng trng ca doanh nghip........ 105
9.4 Ph bin thng tin v hot ng ci tin................................................................. 110
10 Kt lun................................................................................................................... 113
-i-
Danh mc cc bng
Bng 1.1 Khng hong ton cu c tc ng tiu cc n cc iu kin kinh doanh

ca doanh nghip khng?................................................................................... 4
Bng 1.2 Ma trn chuyn dch khng hong..................................................................... 5
Bng 1.3 Khng hong ton cu theo a bn v quy m doanh nghip........................... 5
Bng 1.4 Khng hong th gii hin ti mang li nhng c hi tch cc cho

hot ng kinh doanh......................................................................................... 6
Bng 1.5 Ma trn chuyn dch c hi................................................................................ 6
Bng 2.1 Tng quan v tng mu cc doanh nghip ch bin phi quc doanh............. 7
Bng 2.2 S lng doanh nghip c phng vn............................................................ 8
Bng 2.3 S lng doanh nghip c phng vn theo a phng v
Hnh thc php l............................................................................................. 10
Bng 2.4 S lng doanh nghip theo a phng v ngnh...........................................11
Bng 2.5 S lng doanh nghip theo quy m v a bn.............................................. 12
Bng 2.6 S lng doanh nghip theo hnh thc php l v ngnh ngh........................ 14
Bng 2.7 S doanh nghip theo hnh thc s hu php l v quy m............................. 15
Bng 2.8 S doanh nghip theo ngnh v quy m........................................................... 15
Bng 2.9 Tng quan cc doanh nghip tn ti................................................................. 17
Bng 3.1 Thng k lao ng trung bnh theo quy m doanh nghip............................... 18
Bng 3.2 Ma trn chuyn dch vic lm.......................................................................... 19
Bng 3.3 Tng trng vic lm theo a bn, hnh thc php l v quy m................... 20
Bng 3.4 Tng trng vic lm theo ngnh..................................................................... 21
Bng 3.5 Cc yu t quyt nh tng trng vic lm..................................................... 22
Bng 3.6 Xc xut thot khi th trng ca doanh nghip theo a bn,

hnh thc php l v quy m............................................................................ 24
Bng 3.7 Xc sut thot khi th trng ca doanh nghip theo ngnh.......................... 25
Bng 3.8 Cc nhn t dn n vic thot khi th trng ca doanh nghip.................. 26
Bng 3.9 Tm thi ng ca trong nm 2009 v thot khi th trng trong nm 2011.... 27
Bng 4.1 Thng k tm tt tnh chnh thc..................................................................... 28
Bng 4.2 Ma trn chuyn dch tnh chnh thc................................................................ 29
Bng 4.3 S bin ng ca doanh nghip v tnh chnh thc.......................................... 30
Bng 4.4 T l li nhun thun trn tng li nhun........................................................ 31
Bng 4.5 Bao nhiu doanh nghip chi hi l?................................................................. 32
Bng 4.6 Bao nhiu doanh nghip chi hi l?................................................................. 32
Bng 4.7 Cc yu t quyt nh vic hi l: Cc nghi vn thng thng....................... 33
Bng 4.8 Cc yu t quyt nh vic hi l: Cc nghi vn thng thng....................... 34
Bng 5.1 T l a dng ha v ci tin (phn trm)........................................................ 35
Bng 5.2 a dng ha v ci tin, theo ngnh................................................................. 36
- ii -
Bng 5.3 Ma trn chuyn dch a dng ha v ci tin................................................... 37

Bng 5.4 Cc c tnh a dng ha v ci tin................................................................ 38
Bng 5.5 a dng ha, ci tin v bin ng doanh nghip............................................ 39
Bng 5.6 Nng sut lao ng theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn.............................. 40
Bng 5.7 Nng sut lao ng theo ngnh........................................................................ 41
Bng 5.8 Cc c tnh ca nng sut lao ng................................................................ 42
Bng 6.1 u t mi........................................................................................................ 43
Bng 6.2 Tnh hnh u t (Ma trn chuyn dch u t)................................................ 44
Bng 6.3 Cc c im u t......................................................................................... 45
Bng 6.4 Ngun ti chnh u t, theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn....................... 46
Bng 6.5 Tip cn tn dng.............................................................................................. 47
Bng 6.6 Vay phi chnh thc v ro cn tn dng............................................................ 48
Bng 6.7 Cc c tnh tip cn tn dng.......................................................................... 49
Bng 7.1 Cu thnh ca lc lng lao ng (phn trm ca tng lc lng lao ng)..... 52
Bng 7.2 Cu thnh lc lng lao ng theo ngh (phn trm tng lc lng lao ng)... 53
Bng 7.3 Ma trn chuyn dch ngh nghip.................................................................... 54
Bng 7.4 Tnh n nh ca lc lng lao ng................................................................ 55
Bng 7.5 Nhng kh khn trong tuyn dng................................................................... 56
Bng 7.6 Phng php tuyn dng.................................................................................. 57
Bng 7.7 Cc phng php tuyn dng theo ngnh........................................................ 58
Bng 7.8 Cc bin php m bo lao ng lm vic chm ch....................................... 59
Bng 7.9 o lo lc lng lao ng.............................................................................. 60
Bng 7.10 Trnh hc vn............................................................................................... 61
Bng 7.11 T l doanh nghip c Cng on c s v thnh vin.................................... 62
Bng 7.12 Lao ng c phc li x hi............................................................................. 63
Bng 7.13 Cc doanh nghip c s chuyn dch (%)........................................................ 65
Bng 7.14 Cc yu t quyt nh lng............................................................................. 69
Bng 7.15 Cc nhn t chnh xc nh mc lng............................................................ 70
Bng 7.16 Cc nhn t chnh xc nh lng theo ngnh................................................. 71
Bng 7.17 Phc li x hi (%)........................................................................................... 72
Bng 7.18 Thi hn ca hp ng chnh thc (phn trm ngi lao ng)...................... 74
Bng 8.1 Trnh hc vn c bn v kinh nghim lm vic ca ch s hu/ngi
qun l theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn................................................. 77
Bng 8.2 Hc vn c bn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l theo ngnh v

doanh nghip h gia nh................................................................................. 80
Bng 8.3 Nng lc, tng trng v s tn ti ca doanh nghip..................................... 83
Bng 8.4 Nng lc v tng trng lao ng.................................................................... 84
Bng 8.5 u t mi (t iu tra trc).......................................................................... 86
Bng 8.6 Ci tin, hc vn v kinh nghim ca ch s hu/ngi qun l..................... 87
- iii -
Bng 8.7 Hc vn ca ngi lao ng theo hc vn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l.......... 90

Bng 8.8 Phc li x hi theo c im ca ch s hu/ngi qun l.......................... 90
Bng 8.9 Nng sut lao ng theo c im ca ch s hu/ngi qun l................... 92
Bng 8.10 Hi quy nng sut lao ng.............................................................................. 93
Bng 9.1 S lng ngi doanh nghip thng xuyn lin h....................................... 96
Bng 9.2 S lng lin h bnh qun theo ngnh............................................................ 97
Bng 9.3 Nhm lin h kinh doanh quan trng nht....................................................... 97
Bng 9.4 T l lin h theo nhm.................................................................................... 98
Bng 9.5 La chn nh cung cp..................................................................................... 99
Bng 9.6 Thnh vin ca cc hip hi doanh nghip chnh thc.................................. 100
Bng 9.7 Cc yu t quyt nh l thnh vin ca hip hi kinh doanh........................ 101
Bng 9.8 H tr vn ng t hip hi doanh nghip..................................................... 102
Bng 9.9 Li ch theo nhn thc v thc t ca thnh vin hip hi............................. 104
Bng 9.10 Hot ng mng li i vi hot ng ca doanh nghip........................... 106
Bng 9.11 Tc ng ca mi quan h mng li i vi tng trng ca doanh nghip........ 108
Bng 9.12 Tng trng doanh nghip theo loi quan h mng li................................ 109
Bng 9.13 Yu cu t khch hng v nh cung cp..........................................................110
Bng 9.14 S ci tin ca doanh nghip.......................................................................111
- iv -
Danh mc cc hnh
Hnh 4.1 Chi hi l c dng vo mc ch g?..............................................................33
Hnh 6.1 u t c ngun gc ti chnh t u?...............................................................45
Hnh 6.2 Ti sao doanh nghip khng np h s vay?......................................................47
Hnh 7.1 Ch tch cng on.............................................................................................66
Hnh 7.2 Lng bnh qun hng thng (tnh theo 1.000 VND).........................................66
Hnh 7.3 Lng thc t bnh qun hng thng (tnh theo 1.000 VND).............................67
Hnh 7.4 Phc li x hi theo gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun l.............................73
Hnh 7.5 Hp ng chnh thc theo gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun l....................74
Hnh 8.1 Hc vn c bn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l theo gii tnh (%).....................79
Hnh 8.2 Hc vn c bn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l theo tnh

chnh thc/phi chnh thc (%)..........................................................................79
Hnh 8.3 ng dng cng ngh c thc hin nh th no?............................................88
Hnh 9.1 Cht lng h tr vn ng..............................................................................103
-v-
Danh mc t vit tt
BRC
BSPS
CIEM
CPI
EC
ECN
EIA
DoE
DOLISA
HCMC
ILSSA
ISIC
GSO
HH
LURC
Mn
MOLISA
MONRE
MPI
N
OLS
SD
DNNVV
USD
VHLSS
VND
Giy chng nhn ng k kinh doanh

Chng trnh h tr khu vc doanh nghip
Vin Nghin cu qun l kinh t Trung ng
Ch s gi tiu dng
Giy chng nhn mi trng
M s doanh nghip
nh gi tc ng mi trng
Khoa Kinh t - i hc Tng hp Copenhagen
S Lao ng - Thng binh v X hi
Thnh ph H Ch Minh
Vin Khoa hc lao ng v x hi
Bng phn ngnh chun quc t
Tng cc Thng k
H gia nh
Giy chng nhn quyn s dng t
Triu
B Lao ng - Thng binh v X hi
B Ti nguyn v Mi trng
B K hoch v u t
S quan st
Bnh phng nh nht thng thng
lch chun
Doanh nghip nh v va
la M
iu tra mc sng h gia nh Vit Nam
Vit Nam ng
- vi -
Li ni u
Cun sch ny cung cp thng tin thu c t cuc iu tra doanh nghip nh
v va (DNNVV) ln th by nm 2011. Kt qu thu c t cc vng iu tra trc,
c bit l vng iu tra nm 2005, 2007 v 2009 khuyn khch Vin Nghin cu
qun l kinh t Trung ng (CIEM) - B K hoch v u t (MPI), Vin Khoa hc
lao ng v x hi (ILSSA) - B Lao ng Thng binh v X hi (MOLISA), Khoa
Kinh t (DoE) - Trng i hc tng hp Copenhagen v Vin Nghin cu kinh t pht
trin th gii, Trng i hc Lin hp quc (UNU-WIDER) cng vi i s qun
an Mch ti Vit Nam ln k hoch v thc hin mt cuc iu tra tip theo vo nm
2011. Cuc iu tra ny c thit k da trn cc vng iu tra trc . Cuc iu tra
c tin hnh thng qua cc cuc phng vn su trong thng 6, thng 7 v thng 8 nm
2011 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 v 2009. 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 nng ng ca cc DNNVV ti Vit Nam.
Bo co ny trnh by tng quan cc thng tin c bn t c s d liu DNNVV
2011, c s so snh ph hp vi s liu ca nm 2009. 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 H Ty sp nhp vo H Ni vo u nm 2009. Tuy nhin, trong bo co ny H Ty vn c xem l mt tnh

ring kt qu ca cuc iu tra c th so snh c vi cc nm trc.
-1-
Li cm n
Nhm tc gi chn thnh cm n PGS.TS. L Xun B - Vin trng Vin Nghin
cu qun l kinh t Trung ng (CIEM), TS. 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 cc bn c lin quan.
Trng nhm nghin cu l GS. John Rand, Gim c nc ngoi d n ti UNUWIDER. Nhm nghin cu bao gm b Marie Skibsted v b Benedikte Bjerge ca
DoE. V pha CIEM, c s tham gia ca ng Bi Vn Dng v ng Nguyn Thnh Tm
vo nhm nghin cu. GS. 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 ca
ILSSA. TS. Nguyn Th Lan Hng l ngi iu phi cc nhm nghin cu ny cng
vi cc ng nghip ca mnh l ng L Ng Bnh, b L Hng Qunh v ng Lu
Quang Tun. 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 i vi cc DNNVV dnh thi gian cho
cc cuc phng vn c thc hin trong nm 2011 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-
1 Gii thiu
Cc doanh nghip nh v va (DNNVV) tip tc l trung tm i vi qu trnh
pht trin kinh t x hi ca Vit Nam, chim t trng ngy cng tng trong tng trng
kinh t v vic lm. Do vy, nm bt c nhng kh khn m cc doanh nghip va
v nh ang i mt cng nh tim nng ca nhng doanh nghip ny c vai tr quan
trng. Cc chnh sch hu khng hong c xy dng nhm duy tr sc cnh tranh
ca cc DNNVV Vit Nam, cc s liu c thu thp trong cuc iu tra to thun li
cho cc nghin cu lin quan n chnh sch thng qua cung cp thng tin chi tit hn
v s bin ng ca khu vc DNNVV cng nh nng cao kh nng h tr c hiu qu
s pht trin di hn ca khu vc doanh nghip ny. Do vy, iu tra nm 2011 c vai
tr c bit quan trng i vi phn tch tc ng ca khng hong ti chnh th gii
i vi cc DNNVV Vit Nam.
Da trn nhng cu hi trc tip v cc tc ng c th nhn thc c (bi ch
s hu v ngi qun l) ca khng hong ton cu, Bng 1.1 cho thy 65,4% s doanh
nghip c phng vn trong nm 2009 nhn thy khng hong ton cu c tc ng
tiu cc n cc iu kin hot ng kinh doanh ca doanh nghip. Con s ny gim
xung cn 61,7% trong nm 2011. Tuy nhin, nu ch phn tch da trn mu cn bng
th t l ny khng thay i ng k.
Bng 1.1 Khng hong ton cu c tc ng tiu cc n cc iu kin kinh
doanh ca doanh nghip khng?
Tng mu
S quan st
Phn trm C
2009
(2.508)
65,4
2011
(2.449)
61,7
Mu cn
bng
2009
(1.999)
64,3
2011
(1.999)
62,6
Bng 1.1 trnh by t l tng t cc doanh nghip b tc ng bi khng hong

ton cu nm 2008. Tuy nhin, nghin cu ma trn chuyn dch khng hong (Bng
1.2) cho thy 53,8% s doanh nghip tr li Khng gp kh khn do khng hong
ton cu nm 2008 trong iu tra nm 2009 tr li c b tc ng bi khng hong trong
nm 2011. Mt khc, 32,5% s doanh nghip b tc ng bi khng hong trong nm
2009 khng cn b tc ng trong nm 2011. Bng 1.2 cng cho thy ch c 330 trong
s 1.999 doanh nghip (16.5%) u tr li trong c hai vng iu tra khng b tc ng
bi cuc khng hong.
-4-
Bng 1.2 Ma trn chuyn dch khng hong
Khng hong Khng

2009
Khng hong C 2009
Tng s
Phn trm
Khng hong
Khng 2011
Khng hong
C 2011
Tng s
Phn trm
330
384
714
(35,7)
(46,2)
(53,8)
(100,0)
418
867
1285
(32,5)
(67,5)
(100,0)
748
1251
1999
(100,0)
(37,4)
(62,6)
(100,0)
(64,3)
Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.
Bng 1.3 cho thy cc doanh nghip thnh th min Nam chu tc ng ln hn
ca khng hong 2008 (theo nhn thc ca ch s hu v ngi qun l). S khc bit
trong nhn thc gia cc doanh nghip min Bc v cc doanh nghip min Nam
ch c quan st trong iu tra nm 2011. Hn na, cc doanh nghip h gia nh chu
tc ng t hn t cuc khng hong so vi cc doanh nghip c tnh chnh thc hn.
Tuy nhin, c s gim nh trong s lng cc doanh nghip nh v va b tc ng bi
cuc khng hong theo thi gian.
Bng 1.3 Khng hong ton cu theo a bn v quy m doanh nghip
Nm
2009
2011
Tt c cc doanh nghip
64,3
62,6
Thnh th
69,8
73,8
Nng thn
60,6
54,9
Min Nam
64,5
70,5
Min Bc
64,2
57,4
Siu nh
56,9
56,3
Nh
78,0
75,9
Va
85,7
81,2
Ghi ch: Mu cn bng (1.999 quan st hng nm)
Trong nm 2009, gn 12% s doanh nghip tin tng rng cuc khng hong
to ra mt s c hi cho doanh nghip, c bit l cc doanh nghip ln chnh thc c
kh nng hng li t cc li ch tim nng ny. Tuy nhin, trong nm 2011 (nh trnh
by trong Bng 1.4), ch c 5,6% s doanh nghip tin rng khng hong ton cu
mang li ng c tch cc cho iu kin hot ng kinh doanh ca cc doanh nghip.
-5-
Bng 1.4 Khng hong th gii hin ti mang li nhng c hi tch cc

cho hot ng kinh doanh
S quan st
Phn trm C
2009
(2.508)
11,8
2011
(2.449)
5,6
Mu cn bng
2009
(1.999)
12,2
2011
(1.999)
5,6
Tng mu
Cui cng, ma trn chuyn dch c hi trong Bng 1.5 cho thy ch c 17 trong
1.999 doanh nghip u cho bit tt c cc ln c phng vn l h tin rng cuc
khng hong ton cu mang li nhng c hi tch cc cho doanh nghip. Nh trong
nm 2009, nhng doanh nghip ny cho bit tc ng tch cc c th hin nh u
vo r hn, mc cnh tranh t hn v s h tr ca Chnh ph nhiu hn.
Bng 1.5 Ma trn chuyn dch c hi
C hi
Khng 2011
C hi
C 2011
Tng
Phn
trm
1.662
94
1.756
(87,8)
(94,6)
(5,4)
(100,0)
226
17
243
(93,0)
(7,0)
(100,0)
Tng s
1.888
111
1.999
(100,0)
Phn trm
(94,4)
(5,6)
(100,0)
C hi
Khng 2009
C hi
C 2009
(12,2)
Nhng kt qu ny cho thy phn ln cc DNNVV u nhn thc rng khng

hong ton cu tc ng tiu cc ng k n cc iu kin hot ng kinh doanh.
Tuy nhin, nhng iu kin ny u da trn nhn thc ca cc doanh nghip c iu
tra. Trong khi khng nghi ng v tnh xc thc ca nhng cu tr li ca doanh nghip
th vic phn tch cc tc ng theo nhn thc ca cuc khng hong ton cu theo m
hnh nng ng ca doanh nghip (tn ti/rt lui v tng trng) vn l trng tm ca
bo co ny.
-6-
2 M t s liu v chn mu
2.1 Chn mu
Cc cuc iu tra DNNVV trong nm 2005, 2007 v 2009 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 tn ti c phng vn li trong tng vng iu tra (iu tra theo
di). Quy trnh chn mu nm 2011 tun theo quy trnh chn mu ca cc nm 2005,
2007 v 2009. 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): iu tra
c s t nm 2002 (GSO, 2004) v iu tra cng nghip 2004-2006 (GSO, 2007). T
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, 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.
Bng 2.1 Tng quan v tng mu cc doanh nghip ch bin phi quc doanh
H Ni
Ph Th
H Ty*
Hi Phng
Ngh An
Qung Nam
Khnh Ha*
Lm ng
TP. H Ch Minh
Long An
Tng mu
Doanh
Doanh nghip Doanh nghip Cng ty trch
Cng ty
nghip h gia t nhn/1 thnh hp danh/tp th/ nhim hu
c phn
nh
vin
hp tc x
hn
16.588
17.042
23.890
12.811
22.695
10.509
5.603
5.268
34.241
8.050
156.697
1.194
65
100
206
125
51
119
75
2.052
83
4.068
217
12
18
38
23
9
22
14
374
15
741
1.793
97
150
309
187
76
178
112
3.080
124
6.107
397
22
33
69
41
17
39
25
683
27
1.354
Ngun: Thc trng doanh nghip (GSO, 2007) v Kt qu tng iu tra c s Vit Nam (GSO, 2004). Ghi ch: ch
bao gm cc doanh nghip ch bin ngoi quc doanh. Khng bao gm s liu ca cc doanh nghip lin doanh. S
liu ca H Ty c iu chnh gim xung v s liu ca tnh Khnh Ha c iu chnh tng ln sau nhiu
tham vn vi cc cn b trung ng v a phng
-7-
Mu ban u c chn t tng mu nm 2005 ca cc doanh nghip ch bin

ngoi quc doanh nh trnh by trong Bng 2.1. Do vy, nhng tnh thnh c chn
chim gn 30% s doanh nghip ch bin ti Vit Nam. Tuy nhin, nh nu r trong
cc bo co trc, s liu ca Tng cc Thng k i vi Khnh Ha v H Ty (c)
c iu chnh. Kim tra s liu chnh thc ca Khnh Ha vi Tng cc Thng k
dn n iu chnh tng s lng doanh nghip h gia nh c ng k kinh doanh nm
20022. Bn cnh , trong s liu thng k chnh thc, H Ty (c) chim khong 10%
tng s doanh nghip ch bin ti Vit Nam. iu ny dng nh khng hp l. V vy
chng ti iu chnh gim s lng doanh nghip h gia nh ca H Ty (c) bng
cch ly s lng trung bnh ca cc doanh nghip ch bin h gia nh ti cc tnh
thnh ln cn H Ni. iu ny dn n kt qu tng s 23.890 doanh nghip h gia
nh c s dng l tng mu doanh nghip h gia nh cho H Ty (c).
Mu ca nm 2011 c chn t tng mu xc nh trong cc cuc iu tra nm
2005, 2007 v 2009 (CIEM, 2007, 2009 v 2011). Tuy nhin, c im s liu ca iu
tra theo di s thu thp thng tin v nhng thay i c cu php l v cc doanh nghip
hin c tr thnh cc doanh nghip chnh thc. Bn cnh , cc doanh nghip
rt khi th trng cng c thay th ngu nhin da trn hai tiu ch: (i) mc cc
doanh nghip h gia nh khng i da trn thng tin ca TCTK (2004), v (ii) tng
mu mi nm 2011 ca cc doanh nghip ng k theo Lut Doanh nghip t TCTK
(cha cng b).
Bng 2.2 S lng doanh nghip c phng vn
H Ni
Ph Th
H Ty
Hi Phng
Ngh An
Qung Nam
Khnh Ha
Lm ng
Tp H Ch Minh
Long An
Tng mu
Phng vn nm 2011
270
252
340
205
349
158
97
78
574
126
2.449
Phng vn nm 2009
279
257
371
208
352
151
93
67
603
127
2.508
Ghi ch: Mu cn bng bao gm 1.999 quan st mi nm.

2 Theo TCTK, gn 0,8 % s doanh nghip ch bin h gia nh ng ti Khnh Ha. V tng s doanh nghip ch
bin h gia nh ca c nn kinh t l 700.309 nn tng s doanh nghip ch bin h gia nh ca Khnh Ha
c iu chnh tng ln l 5.603 doanh nghip (t 4.777 doanh nghip).
-8-
Cn lu rng s liu ca iu tra DNNVV bao gm c cc doanh nghip h

gia nh ng k v khng ng k (phi chnh thc). Cc doanh nghip h gia nh phi
chnh thc ny (khng c giy php ng k kinh doanh hoc m s thu v khng ng
k vi chnh quyn qun/huyn) cng c trong cc iu tra da trn vic xc nh ti
a bn. Do , tt c cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc trong iu tra hot ng song
hnh vi cc doanh nghip c ng k chnh thc. Vic iu tra c nhng doanh nghip
khng ng k vi c quan c thm quyn l ng gp quan trng v l duy nht Vit
Nam. Tuy nhin, cn lu l mu cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc ca chng ti khng
i din cho ton b khu vc phi chnh thc ca Vit Nam v m hnh chn mu ca
iu tra DNNVV da trn cc cuc v iu tra doanh nghip ca GSO v cc cuc v
iu tra ny ch bao trm mt phn ca khu vc phi chnh thc.
Cch thc chn mu nm 2011 tun theo cch thc ca cc cuc iu tra nm
2005, 2007 v 2009 (xem chi tit ti CIEM, 2007, 2009 v 2011). Bng 2.2 cho thy
2.449 doanh nghip c phng vn. Mt s doanh nghip cho bit h khng phi l
doanh nghip ch bin (4 doanh nghip trong ngnh nng nghip v 17 doanh nghip
trong ngnh dch v) mc d h s chnh thc lit k l doanh nghip ch bin. so
snh, ct 2 trong Bng 2.2 trnh by s doanh nghip c phng vn trong iu tra nm
2009 ti tng tnh, thnh ph. Thng tin s liu mu v 1.999 doanh nghip c xy
dng phc v qu trnh phn tch.
Trn mi lnh vc, cc mu u c phn tng theo hnh thc php l m bo
mi loi hnh doanh nghip ngoi quc doanh u c a vo bao gm doanh nghip
h gia nh, doanh nghip t nhn, cng ty hp danh/hp tc x, cng ty trch nhim
hu hn v cng ty c phn. Bng 2.3 trnh by s lng doanh nghip ch bin ngoi
quc doanh c iu tra phn theo loi hnh php l. Ch c 66% s doanh nghip
c phng vn l doanh nghip h gia nh so vi 90% trong tng mu doanh nghip
bo co trn. iu ny c ngha l s lng doanh nghip phi h gia nh nhiu hn so
vi yu cu ca mu iu tra.
-9-
Bng 2.3 S lng doanh nghip c phng vn theo a phng v hnh thc
php l
Doanh
nghip h
gia nh
Doanh
nghip t
nhn/1
thnh vin
Doanh
nghip hp
danh/tp th/
hp tc x
Cng
ty trch
nhim
hu hn
Cng ty
c phn
Tng s
H Ni
93
30
21
101
25
270
Ph Th
218
17
252
H Ty
281
42
340
Hi Phng
104
20
18
41
22
205
Ngh An
274
18
33
19
349
Qung Nam
124
20
158
Khnh Ha
61
15
19
97
Lm ng
59
12
78
TP. H Ch Minh
285
62
11
204
12
574
Long An
90
21
14
126
Tng mu
1.589
196
66
503
95
2.449
Mt s c im thng i km vi cc bin ng ca doanh nghip, c bit l

a bn, ngnh ngh, hnh thc php l v quy m doanh nghip. Tt c cc c im
ny i din cho s bin i ca cc c im th trng v/hoc t chc doanh nghip.
Cc Bng 2.3 v 2.8 trnh by cc bng biu khc nhau v cc c tnh in hnh ca
nng ng doanh nghip.
- 10 -
- 11 -
Ghi ch: S lng doanh nghip (phn trm nhm trong ngoc n).
M
ISIC
AGR
Ph
H
Hi
H Ni Th
Ty Phng
Nng nghip
1
0
0
2
Sn phm thc phm v
15
ung
53
103
91
45
17
Dt
7
7
53
5
18
May mc v.v
22
0
1
7
19
Thuc da v da may mc
5
0
3
11
20
G v cc sn phm g
5
39
101
9
Giy v cc sn phm
21
giy
11
10
0
6
22
Xut bn, in n, v.v...
15
0
3
7
23
Du m tinh ch, v.v.
1
1
0
1
24
Sn phm ha hc, v.v
8
3
1
0
25
Sn phm cao su v nha
30
1
2
7
Sn phm khong phi
26
kim
9
13
15
13
27
Kim loi c bn
12
0
1
8
28
Sn phm kim loi c
55
46
23
54
My mc (bao gm vn
29-32 phng + in)
13
1
6
5
34
Xe c, v.v...
4
0
1
0
35
Phng tin giao thng
1
0
1
3
36
Ni tht, v.v
17
28
36
17
37
Ti ch
0
0
1
2
SER Dch v
1
0
1
3
Tng
s
270
252
340
205
Phn
trm
(11,0) (10,3) (13,9) (8,4)
58
0
6
6
15
0
0
0
0
2
8
1
38
3
0
0
19
0
2
158
(6,5)
3
0
1
3
1
22
5
69
4
2
0
38
0
3
349
(14,3)
(4,0)
97
1
0
0
10
0
1
5
2
16
5
1
0
1
2
40
0
2
2
9
Qung Khnh
Nam
Ha
0
0
135
2
14
0
47
Ngh
An
0
(3,2)
78
0
0
0
6
0
2
4
1
18
0
2
0
2
0
35
3
0
2
3
Lm
ng
0
(23,4)
574
37
10
3
19
3
2
15
3
88
31
28
1
20
65
126
26
67
18
11
TP.
HCM
1
Bng 2.4 S lng doanh nghip theo a phng v ngnh
2.449
74
17
8
194
6
17
116
35
432
66
60
7
38
114
737
104
122
49
249
Tng
s
4
(5,1) (100,0)
126
4
0
0
4
0
2
12
2
25
0
4
2
0
4
51
1
3
2
10
Long
An
0
(100,0)
(3,0)
(0,7)
(0,3)
(7,9)
(0,2)
(0,7)
(4,7)
(1,4)
(17,6)
(2,7)
(2,4)
(0,3)
(1,6)
(4,7)
(30,1)
(4,2)
(5,0)
(2,0)
(10,2)
Phn
trm
(0,2)
Bng 2.4 tp trung m t cc doanh nghip theo a bn v ngnh ngh. M ngnh

da trn m ca Bng phn ngnh chun quc t (ISIC). u tin, ba ngnh ln nht
xt v s lng doanh nghip l ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15), sn xut sn phm t
kim loi c sn (ISIC 28) v ch bin sn phm t g (ISIC 20). Nhng ngnh ny l
nhng ngnh ch o trong iu tra DNNVV 2009. Bn cnh , kt qu ny kh tng
ng vi s liu phn b theo ngnh ca TCTK (2004, 2007).
Bng 2.5 trnh by cc bng s liu theo a bn - quy m3. 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.
Bng 2.5 S lng doanh nghip theo quy m v a bn
H Ni
Ph Th
H Ty
Hi Phng
Ngh An
Qung Nam
Khnh Ha
Lm ng
TP HCM
Long An
Tng s
Phn trm
Siu nh
131
(48,5)
221
(87,7)
234
(68,8)
128
(62,4)
286
(81,9)
135
(85,4)
66
(68,0)
63
(80,8)
320
(55,7)
104
(82,5)
1.688
(68,9)
Nh
113
(41,9)
23
(9,1)
99
(29,1)
58
(28,3)
49
(14,0)
18
(11,4)
23
(23,7)
11
(14,1)
204
(35,5)
19
(15,1)
617
(25,2)
Va
26
(9,6)
8
(3,2)
7
(2,1)
19
(9,3)
14
(4,0)
5
(3,2)
8
(8,2)
4
(5,1)
50
(8,7)
3
(2,4)
144
(5,9)
Tng s
270
(100,0)
252
(100,0)
340
(100,0)
205
(100,0)
349
(100,0)
158
(100,0)
97
(100,0)
78
(100,0)
574
(100,0)
126
(100,0)
2.449
(100,0)
Phn trm
(11,0)
(10,3)
(13,9)
(8,4)
(14,3)
(6,5)
(4,0)
(3,2)
(23,4)
(5,1)
(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)
3 nh ngha ca chng ti v doanh nghip siu nh, nh, va v ln theo nh ngha hin ti ca Ngn hng Th
gii v Chnh ph Vit Nam. Phng Nghin cu doanh nghip NVV hot ng vi 3 nhm ca doanh nghip NVV:
doanh nghip siu nh, nh v va. Doanh nghip siu nh c ti 10 lao ng, doanh nghip nh c ti 50 lao ng
v doanh nghip va c ti 300 lao ng. Nhng nh ngha ny c Chnh ph Vit Nam chp nhn rng ri (xem
Ngh nh s 90/2011/CP-N ca Chnh ph v H tr pht trin doanh nghip NVV). Loi hnh qui m doanh
nghip ca chng ti da trn s lng lao ng lm vic ton thi gian, bn thi gian v lao ng thng xuyn.
- 12 -
Nh cp trn, Bng 2.6 cho thy 67% s doanh nghip trong mu l cc

doanh nghip h gia nh. T l doanh nghip trong nhm ch bin thc phm (ISIC 20)
c ng k l cc doanh nghip h gia nh cao hn mc trung bnh ca mu (82%).
Tng t i vi cc doanh nghip trong ngnh ch bin g (ISIC 20) v ti ch (ISIC
37). Ngc li, nhiu doanh nghip trong ngnh may mc (ISIC 18), giy (ISIC 21),
xut bn v in n (ISIC 22), ha cht (ISIC 24), cao su (ISIC 25), kim loi c bn (ISIC
27) v tt c cc nhm my mc (ISIC 29-35) c lit vo nhm cc doanh nghip nh
v doanh nghip va.
Theo Bng 2.7, khong 63% s doanh nghip va ng k l cng ty TNHH so
vi con s 44% v 8% tng ng ca cc doanh nghip nh v siu nh. Hn na, 84%
doanh nghip siu nh l cc doanh nghip h gia nh. iu ny ng lu khi nh
gi ng gp tng trng ca vic chuyn dch t c cu doanh nghip phi chnh thc
(hu ht l doanh nghip h gia nh) sang cc doanh nghip chnh thc (xem Rand v
Torm (2012), Rand v Tarp (2012) c thng tin su hn v vn ny). Ch c 33%
cc cng ty c phn thuc nhm doanh nghip va v gn 14% doanh nghip c phn
thuc nhm doanh nghip siu nh.
- 13 -
- 14 -
T nhn/1
thnh vin
0
37
5
9
3
18
14
11
1
4
13
10
9
36
5
2
2
15
0
2
196
(8,0)
Doanh nghip
h gia nh
1
601
62
56
33
196
11
20
5
9
40
67
16
296
24
4
3
134
5
6
1.589
(64,9)
AGR Nng nghip

Sn phm thc phm v
15
ung
17
Dt
18
May mc v.v
19
Thuc da v da may mc
20
G v cc sn phm g
21
Giy v cc sn phm giy
22
23
Du m tinh ch, v.v.
24
Sn phm ha hc, v.v
25
Sn phm cao su v nha
26
Sn phm khong phi kim
27
Kim loi c bn
28
Sn phm kim loi c
29My mc (bao gm vn
32
phng + in)
34
Xe c, v.v...
35
Phng tin giao thng
36
Ni tht, v.v
37
Ti ch
SER Dch v
Tng
s
Phn trm
M
ISIC
66
(2,7)
0
1
1
5
0
1
4
1
3
1
8
2
2
0
4
10
9
2
11
Hp danh/Tp
th/HTX
503
(20,5)
40
10
1
29
0
6
80
32
47
9
22
34
25
1
18
46
20
7
76
Cng ty
TNHH
95
(3,9)
5
0
1
11
1
2
15
4
7
3
5
5
2
0
3
5
10
1
13
Cng ty
c phn
Bng 2.6 S lng doanh nghip theo hnh thc php l v ngnh ngh
2.449
(100,0)
74
17
8
194
6
17
737
104
122
49
249
66
60
7
38
114
116
35
432
Tng s
(100,0)
(3,0)
(0,7)
(0,3)
(7,9)
(0,2)
(0,7)
(30,1)
(4,2)
(5,0)
(2,0)
(10,2)
(2,7)
(2,4)
(0,3)
(1,6)
(4,7)
(4,7)
(1,4)
(17,6)
(0,2)
Phn trm
Bng 2.7 S doanh nghip theo hnh thc s hu php l v quy m
C s/doanh nghip h gia nh

Doanh nghip t nhn/1 thnh vin
Doanh nghip hp danh/tp th/hp tc x
Cng ty TNHH
Cng ty c phn
Tng s
Phn trm
Siu
nh
1.426
92
18
139
13
1.688
(68,9)
Nh
Va
162
91
40
273
51
617
(25,2)
1
13
8
91
31
144
(5,9)
Tng
s
1.589
196
66
503
95
2.449
(100,0)
Phn trm
(64,9)
(8,0)
(2,7)
(20,5)
(3,9)
(100,0)
Cui cng, Bng 2.8 cho thy, xt v quy m doanh nghip, c s bin i ln theo
cc ngnh khc nhau. V d, trong ngnh ch bin thc phm, khong 84% s doanh
nghip l cc doanh nghip siu nh trong khi con s ny trong ngnh sn phm giy
(ISIC) l 29%. Hn 50% s doanh nghip trong ngnh ha cht (ISIC 24) thuc nhm
cc doanh nghip nh.
Bng 2.8 S doanh nghip theo ngnh v quy m
M
ISIC
AGR
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29-32
34
35
36
37
SER
Tng s
Phn trm
Nng nghip
Sn phm thc phm v ung
Dt
May mc v.v
Thuc da v da may mc
G v cc sn phm g
Giy v cc sn phm giy
Du m tinh ch, v.v.
Sn phm ha hc, v.v
Sn phm cao su v nha
Kim loi c bn
Sn phm kim loi c
My mc (bao gm vn phng +
in)
Xe c, v.v...
Phng tin giao thng
Ni tht, v.v
Ti ch
Dch v
Siu
nh
3
616
56
62
32
188
19
37
6
14
50
63
17
342
Nh
0
96
40
41
10
57
32
22
1
22
53
40
15
78
Va
1
25
8
19
7
4
15
1
0
2
11
13
3
12
Tng
s
4
737
104
122
49
249
66
60
7
38
114
116
35
432
Phn
trm
(0,2)
(30,1)
(4,2)
(5,0)
(2,0)
(10,2)
(2,7)
(2,4)
(0,3)
(1,6)
(4,7)
(4,7)
(1,4)
(17,6)
29
5
5
129
4
11
1.688
(68,9)
36
9
2
56
2
5
617
(25,2)
9
3
1
9
0
1
144
(5,9)
74
17
8
194
6
17
2.449
(100,0)
(3,0)
(0,7)
(0,3)
(7,9)
(0,2)
(0,7)
(100,0)
- 15 -
2.2 Thc hin iu tra

Do cc l do khc nhau, vic thc hin iu tra b gii hn trong tng khu vc c
th trn a bn mi tnh/thnh. Theo , mu c chn ngu nhin t danh sch cc
doanh nghip da trn tng mu cc doanh nghip ch bin ngoi quc doanh c
lit k trong Bng 2.1. Qu trnh chn mu theo phn tng c s dng m bo
mt s lng tng xng cc doanh nghip ti mi tnh/thnh theo cc hnh thc php
l khc nhau. Trong nhng trng hp doanh nghip h gia nh chnh thc khng
tng thch, cc doanh nghip h gia nh chnh thc v phi chnh thc c xc nh
ti a bn s thay th cho cc doanh nghip h gia nh c chn trc . iu
ny cho php c s tham gia ca cc doanh nghip h gia nh khng ng k kinh
doanh nhng vn hot ng song hnh vi cc doanh nghip chnh thc.
Kha tp hun cho cc iu tra vin c t chc vo ma xun nm 2011, trc
khi tin hnh iu tra. Hot ng ny to iu kin xc nh v lm r nhng im cn
bn khon v chnh sa nhng ni dung c kh nng b hiu nhm khi iu tra. V cc
iu tra vin c sn kinh nghim ng k t cc cuc iu tra trc , trn thc t
kha tp hun c t chc di hnh thc tho lun, trao i v thu c nhng phn
hi c gi tr.
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 2009 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 nhin cho cc doanh nghip
mi. Giai on th hai ca cuc iu tra c bt u vo ma thu nm 2011 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 2011 c x l tip v gp vi tp s liu iu tra 2009
kim tra tng thch.
- 16 -
2.3 Lin kt vi cc cuc iu tra trc

Bng 2.9 a ra t l tn ti ca cc doanh nghip c iu tra trc y.
1.999 doanh nghip c tm thy v xc nhn tham gia cuc iu tra, 355 doanh
nghip c khng nh l khng cn tn ti. 154 doanh nghip (30% s doanh nghip
c kh nng tn ti) b tht lc trong qu trnh chn mu hoc khi tip cn th t chi
tr li bng hi. Do nhng doanh nghip ny b loi khi c s d liu nm 2009 v
2011. S dng thng tin ny cho thy t l tn ti ca cc doanh nghip trong giai on
t 2009 n 2011 l 92,2%, th hin mc tng nh so vi t l 91,6% ca giai on 2007
- 2009, mt t l c th so snh vi t l 9%-10% doanh nghip thot khi ngnh trong
nghin cu ca Liedholm v Mead (1999) mt s quc gia ang pht trin.
Bng 2.9 Tng quan doanh cc nghip tn ti
c iu tra nm 2009
2009
2011
Tn ti
2.354
(2.508)
1.999
Khng nh thot
T l tn ti
355
T l tn ti hng nm
Doanh nghip mi
84,9
92,2
Tng s c iu tra nm 2011
450
2.449
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
70% (355 trong s 509) doanh nghip c khng nh thot khi th trng.
Trong cc phn tip theo, cc phn tch tp trung vo cuc iu tra nm 2011
nhng trong mt s trng hp s kt ni thng tin vi cuc iu tra nm 2009 nhm
theo di s pht trin ca doanh nghip.
- 17 -
3 Tng trng v nng ng doanh nghip

Mc d, theo nhn thc ca cc DNNVV, cuc khng hong kinh t ton cu v
mi trng kinh doanh dng nh ngy cng ti t hn nhng vn cn thit phi tm
hiu nhng nhn t nh hng nhng thay i ln trong khu vc DNNVV v cc cu
phn ca cc nhn t ny. Do vy, s nng ng ca doanh nghip, c bit l (i) tng
trng vic lm v (ii) doanh nghip thot khi th trng s c tp trung phn tch.
3.1 Tng trng vic lm
Bng 3.1 m t cc c lng trung bnh s lng lao ng thng xuyn ton
thi gian trong nm 2009 v 2011 theo quy m doanh nghip cng nh t l doanh
nghip c lng lao ng tng hoc gim trong giai on 2009-2011. Trc ht, tng
s lao ng ton thi gian ca 1.999 DNNVV gim t 28.174 trong nm 2009 xung
cn 26.414 trong nm 2011, tng ng vi mc gim tng s vic lm 6,2% trong giai
on 2 nm. Mc gim st ny cng c phn nh trong mc gim st s lng lao
ng trung bnh t 14,1 trong nm 2009 xung 13,2 trong nm 2011. c bit s lng
doanh nghip nh v va gim s lao ng ton thi gian dn n s st gim trn (mc
d s lng vic lm bnh qun c bo co i vi cc doanh nghip va tng ln
gia nm 2009 v 2011). Khong 60% s doanh nghip va v nh gim s lng lao
ng c nh ca mnh.
Bng 3.1 Thng k lao ng trung bnh theo quy m doanh nghip
Tng s
Tng
s
Quy m
Siu
nh
Nh
Va
2009
2011
Mu cn bng
Trung
Trung
bnh
v
Mu cn bng
Trung Trung
bnh
v
Gim
Khng i
Tng
14,1
5,0
(1.999)
13,2
5,0
(1.999)
42,4
(847)
27,2
(543)
30,5
(609)
4,0
3,8
3,0
(1.388)
19,7
17,0
(489)
94,3
73,0
(122)
33,6
(452)
59,8
(312)
62,4
(83)
35,8
(481)
10,9
(57)
3,8
(5)
30,6
(411)
29,3
(153)
33,8
(45)
3,0
(1.344)
20,1
17,0
(522)
93,0
80,0
(133)
Thay i t 2009 n 2011

T l doanh nghip
gim/tng vic lm
Ghi ch: S lng lao ng thng xuyn ton b thi gian. (S quan st trong ngoc n). 1.999 doanh nghip
trong mu cn bng s dng 28.174 lao ng thng xuyn ton b thi gian trong nm 2009 so vi 26.414 lao
ng trong nm 2011 (tng ng vi mc gim 6,2% tng s vic lm trong giai on 2 nm nghin cu).
- 18 -
Bng 3.1 nu r rng c s thay i ln quy m ca cc doanh nghip 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 3.2 trnh by s chuyn dch vic lm ca cc doanh nghip siu
nh, nh v va t nm 2009 n nm 2011. S liu c trnh by ch ra kh r rng
cc doanh nghip siu nh vi 1 n 9 lao ng c xu hng tip tc l doanh nghip
nh, khong 93% s doanh nghip trong nhm ny trong nm 2009 vn tn ti trong
nhm trong nm 2011. Hn na, nh kt qu ca nm 2009, cc doanh nghip c s
tng ln v quy m ch chuyn sang nhm doanh nghip quy m nh. Quan st cc
nhm doanh nghip quy m nh v doanh nghip quy m va, thng tin khng nh kt
lun t c trn rng cc doanh nghip ny c xu hng gim v phn b quy m
theo thi gian. S liu chuyn dch vic lm ni chung kh tng ng vi s liu c
bo co trong CIEM (2009) cho giai on 2007-2009, mc d mt t l ln hn cc
doanh nghip trong cc nhm doanh nghip ln hn c s st gim v quy m vic lm.
Bng 3.2 Ma trn chuyn dch vic lm
Siu nh 11
Nh 11
Va 11
Tng s
Phn trm
Siu nh 09
1.255
86
1.344
(67,2)
(93,4)
(6,4)
(0,2)
(100,0)
131
362
29
522
(25,1)
(69,3)
(5,6)
(100,0)
41
90
133
(1,5)
(30,8)
(67,7)
(100,0)
Tng s
1.388
489
122
1.999
(100,0)
Phn trm
(69,4)
(24,5)
(6,1)
(100,0)
Nh 09
Va 09
(26,1)
(6,7)
Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n
Bng 3.3 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 2011 chia cho cn bc
hai ca s lao ng thng xuyn ton b thi gian nm 2009) theo a phng, hnh
thc php l v quy m doanh nghip. u tin, mc tng trng vic lm bnh qun
t nm 2009 n 2011 l 0 mi nm, chnh lch ng k so vi mc tng trng dng
c quan st ca giai on 2005-2007 v 2007-2009 (xem CIEM 2007 v 2009
c thm thng tin chi tit). Th hai, c s khc nhau gia cc a phng v to vic
lm trong cc doanh nghip ch bin t nhn. c bit DNNVV ti H Ni, Ngh An,
Thnh ph H Ch Minh v Long An dng nh c s iu chnh gim v s lng lao
- 19 -
ng ton b thi gian. Ngc li, cc DNNVV c chn mu ti Hi Phng v H

Ty (c) tng trng v lc lng lao ng.
Mc tng trng ca cc doanh nghip h gia nh tng ng vi mc bnh
qun ca mu. C doanh nghip t nhn/TNHH 1 thnh vin v cc cng ty TNHH 2
thnh vin tr ln u c s st gim vic lm bnh qun, vi mc tng trng hng
nm l -1,1% trong giai on 2009-2011. Ngc li, cc cng ty hp danh v cng ty
c phn li c s tng trng v vic lm trong cng k. S liu cng cho thy c mi
quan h ngc chiu gia quy m doanh nghip v tng trng vic lm. Cc doanh
nghip siu nh c mc tng bnh qun 3,3% (gim ng k so vi mc tng trng
trong giai on 2005-2007 v 2007-2009) so vi mc -5,7% v -10,5% tng ng trong
cc doanh nghip nh v va. Nhn chung, nhng s liu ny cho thy khng hong
ton cu ang c nhng tc ng v vic lm c bit cc DNNVV ti 10 tnh thnh
c iu tra. So vi cc kt qu ca bo co trc (CIEM, 2011), iu ny cho thy tc
ng vic lm gim ca cuc khng hong phn no tr thnh hin thc.
Bng 3.3 Tng trng vic lm theo a bn, hnh thc php l v quy m
Tng s
Tnh
Tng s
H Ni
Ph Th
H Ty
Hi Phng
Ngh An
Qung Nam
Khnh Ha
Lm ng
TP HCM
Long An
Hnh thc Doanh nghip h gia
php l
nh
T nhn/1 thnh vin
Hp danh/Tp th/HTX
Cng ty TNHH
Cng ty c phn
Quy m
Siu nh
Nh
Va
S quan st
1.999
210
214
306
169
304
128
88
43
431
106
1.356
148
58
376
61
1.344
522
133
Trung bnh
1,000
0,954
0,994
1,055
1,051
0,968
1,008
1,016
1,029
0,988
0,977
lch chun
0,318
0,263
0,228
0,385
0,378
0,260
0,277
0,202
0,334
0,380
0,218
Trung v
1,000
0,960
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
0,939
1,000
1,001
0,986
1,084
0,985
1,047
1,033
0,943
0,895
0,290
0,293
0,557
0,362
0,374
0,327
0,294
0,260
1,000
1,000
1,000
0,962
1,000
1,000
0,913
0,939
Ghi ch: Tc tng trng bnh qun hng nm (phi quyn s) c tnh bng (vic lm thng xuyn ton b
thi gian 2011/vic lm thng xuyn ton b thi gian 2009)^
- 20 -
Bng 3.4 trnh by s liu thng k tm tt tng trng vic lm theo ngnh. Mc
tng trng bin ng gia cc ngnh. c bit ngnh ch bin da (ISIC 19) ang c
s tng trng ng k v s lng lao ng. Cc ngnh c st gim trong giai on
t nm 2009 n nm 2011 l dt may (ISIC 17) v cao su (ISIC 25) vi t l st gim
tng ng l 3,8% v 4,3%.
Bng 3.4 Tng trng vic lm theo ngnh
S quan
st
Trung
bnh
lch
chun
Trung
v
15
602
1,002
0,305
1,000
17
Dt may
94
0,962
0,336
1,000
18
May mc v.v
64
0,977
0,346
0,923
19
Thuc da v da may mc
39
1,162
0,541
1,000
20
G v cc sn phm g
249
1,028
0,398
1,000
21
Giy v cc sn phm giy
50
0,969
0,271
0,966
22
50
0,962
0,238
0,974
24
Sn phm ha hc, v.v
32
0,970
0,307
1,000
25
Sn phm cao su v nha
106
0,957
0,298
0,956
26
102
0,997
0,351
1,000
27
Kim loi c bn
30
1,062
0,328
1,000
28
Sn phm kim loi c
351
0,984
0,263
1,000
29-32
My mc (bao gm vn phng + in)
56
1,030
0,249
1,000
34
Xe c, v.v...
17
1,003
0,220
0,961
36
Ni tht, v.v
139
1,019
0,299
1,000
Ghi ch: Xem Bng 3.3 c thng tin chi tit. Chng ti loi cc ngnh c t hn 10 quan st.
Bng 3.5 kt hp thng tin t hai bng trc bng cch trnh by cc c lng
bnh phng nh nht (OLS) cho tt c cc yu t ch yu quyt nh n tnh nng
ng ca doanh nghip. Trong ct 1, chng ti kim sot ngnh trong khi trong ct 2
chng ti a vo 19 bin gi ngnh trong c tnh.
- 21 -
Bng 3.5 Cc yu t quyt nh tng trng vic lm
C tnh ngnh
Khng tnh ngnh
Ch s
t-stats
Ch s
t-stats
Nh
-0,169***
(-6,81)
-0.180***
(-7.18)
Va
-0,253***
(-6,83)
-0.268***
(-7.06)
H Ni
-0,044*
(-1,67)
-0.040
(-1.49)
Ph Th
-0,020
(-0,82)
-0.021
(-0.77)
H Ty
0,060**
(2,14)
0.059*
(1.92)
Hi Phng
0,023
(0,69)
0.015
(0.42)
Ngh An
-0,051**
(-2,07)
-0.056**
(-2.04)
Qung Nam
-0,022
(-0,71)
-0.039
(-1.13)
Khnh Ha
0,003
(0,09)
-0.005
(-0.17)
Lm ng
0,012
(0,22)
0.002
(0.04)
Long An
-0,045
(-1,59)
-0.050
(-1.61)
Hnh thc s hu
T nhn/1 thnh vin
0,089***
(3,24)
0.096***
(3.33)
Hp danh/Tp th/HTX
0,210***
(2,78)
0.218***
(2.90)
Cng ty TNHH
0,121***
(4,04)
0.130***
(3.99)
Cng ty c phn
0,206***
(4,10)
0.206***
(4.07)
Quy m doanh
nghip
a bn
C bin gi ngnh
Khng
S quan st
1.999
1.999
R-squared
0,06
0,08
Ghi ch: OLS Bin ph thuc: tng trng lao ng hng nm. 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).
Th nht, Bng 3.5 cho thy mi quan h t l nghch truyn thng gia tng
trng vic lm v quy m doanh nghip c xc nh r v mt thng k 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 18% so vi cc doanh nghip nh v
27% so vi doanh nghip va. Th hai, cc doanh nghip H Ty (c) ni bt trong
to vic lm. Nu so snh vi Thnh ph H Ch Minh, cc doanh nghip H Ty (c)
c mc tng trng vic lm hng nm cao hn 6%. Th ba, nh trong iu tra trc,
cc doanh nghip h gia nh ng gp t hn v to vic lm trong khu vc ch bin t
- 22 -
nhn4. Tuy nhin, cc nhn t quyt nh truyn thng ch gii thch t 4% n 6% s

bin ng v mc 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.
3.2 Doanh nghip thot khi th trng
S nh hng ca nhng yu t truyn thng n xc sut doanh nghip thot khi
th trng s c nghin cu trong phn ny. Bng 3.6 trnh by xc sut thot khi
th trng ca doanh nghip theo a bn, hnh thc php l v quy m. Trong s 2.508
doanh nghip c iu tra nm 2009, khong 20% ng ca vo nm 2011. iu
ny ng ngha vi t l thot khi th trng hng nm ca doanh nghip l 9,7%, cao
hn so vi t l quan st c trong giai on 2007 - 2009. Tuy nhin, cn lu rng t
l thot khi th trng ny khng da trn s liu doanh nghip thot khi th trng
c khng nh. Nh trnh by trong Chng 2, nu ch da vo s doanh nghip
thot khi th trng c khng nh th t l thot khi th trng hng nm s
gim xung cn 7,8%. Cc thnh ph nh H Ni v Thnh ph H Ch Minh cng
nh Lm ng c t l doanh nghip thot khi th trng cao hn mc trung bnh.
Mt khc, Khnh Ha l a phng c t l thp nht. Thng tin ny nhn chung khng
nh t l doanh nghip thot khi th trng c phn tch trong cc iu tra trc.
4 Tuy nhin cn lu rng quy m doanh nghip v c cu php l c tng quan cao vi nhau v vic khng tnh
quy m doanh nghip dn n cc c tnh h s nh i vi tt c cc ch s c cu php l.
- 23 -
Bng 3.6 Xc sut thot khi th trng ca doanh nghip theo a bn,
hnh thc php l v quy m
Tng s
Tnh
Hnh thc php l
Quy m
S quan st
Trung bnh
lch chun
Tng s
2.508
0,203
0,402
H Ni
279
0,247
0,432
Ph Th
257
0,167
0,374
H Ty
371
0,175
0,381
Hi Phng
208
0,188
0,391
Ngh An
352
0,136
0,344
Qung Nam
151
0,152
0,361
Khnh Ha
93
0,054
0,227
Lm ng
67
0,358
0,483
Tp HCM
603
0,285
0,452
Long An
127
0,165
0,373
1.672
0,189
0,392
T nhn/1 thnh vin
197
0,249
0,433
Hp danh/Tp th/HTX
71
0,183
0,390
Cng ty TNHH
486
0,226
0,419
Cng ty c phn
82
0,256
0,439
1.682
0,201
0,401
Nh
664
0,214
0,410
Va
162
0,179
0,385
Doanh nghip h gia nh
Siu nh
Ghi ch: Cc c tnh trung bnh xc sut thot khi th trng (khng c quyn s).
Cn c theo hnh thc php l, cc doanh nghip h gia nh v cc cng ty hp

danh c xc sut thot khi th trng thp hn so vi cc doanh nghip khc. Bn cnh
, cc doanh nghip va c xu hng thot ra khi th trng thp hn so vi cc
doanh nghip siu nh v nh.
Bng 3.7 trnh by s bin ng ca xc sut thot khi th trng theo ngnh.
Khng tnh n cc ngnh c t quan st, cc doanh nghip trong ngnh may mc (ISIC
18) c nguy c thot khi th trng cao hn, trong khi cc doanh nghip tham gia
vo ngnh kim loi c bn (ISIC 27) c xu hng thot khi th trng thp hn. Tt
c nhng kt qu ny c trnh by trong ct u tin ca Bng 3.8 cho thy cc kt
qu c lng ng tin cy v vic xc nh cc c tnh thot khi th trng trong cc
- 24 -
doanh nghip ch bin Vit Nam trong mi tng quan vi a bn, hnh thc php l,
ngnh v quy m.
Bng 3.7 Xc sut thot khi th trng ca doanh nghip theo ngnh
S quan st
Trung
bnh
lch
chun
2.508
0,203
0,402
732
0,178
0,382
0,333
0,577
Tng s
15
16
Dt may
17
May mc v.v
122
0,230
0,422
18
Thuc da v da may mc
103
0,379
0,487
19
G v cc sn phm g
47
0,170
0,380
20
Giy v cc sn phm giy
301
0,173
0,379
21
69
0,275
0,450
22
Sn phm ha hc, v.v
74
0,324
0,471
23
Sn phm cao su v nha
10
0,200
0,422
24
40
0,200
0,405
25
Kim loi c bn
138
0,232
0,424
26
Sn phm kim loi c
135
0,244
0,431
27
My mc (bao gm vn phng + in)
35
0,143
0,355
28
Xe c, v.v...
428
0,180
0,385
29-32
Ni tht, v.v
70
0,200
0,403
34
24
0,292
0,464
35
Dt may
0,000
0,000
36
May mc v.v
167
0,168
0,375
37
Ti ch
0,667
0,577
Ghi ch: c lng trung bnh xc sut thot khi th trng (phi quyn s).
Th nht, tn ti mi quan h ngc chiu thng xuyn gia quy m doanh

nghip v xc sut thot khi th trng. Cc doanh nghip nh v doanh nghip va
c xc sut thot khi th trng thp hn 5%-10% so vi cc doanh nghip siu nh.
Th hai, xc sut doanh nghip thot khi th trng khu vc thnh th (H Ni v
Thnh ph H Ch Minh), ni c mc cnh tranh cao cng cao hn. Tuy nhin, xc sut
thot khi th trng cng tng i cao hn ti Lm ng. Th ba, cc doanh nghip
t nhn/cng ty TNHH 1 thnh vin v cc cng ty c phn c xc sut thot khi th
- 25 -
trng cao hn (c nh quy m). Cui cng (khng c bo co), nu so snh vi

ngnh c s (ch bin thc phm), cc ngnh nh may mc (ISIC 18) v cc sn phm
khong phi kim loi (ISIC 26), khi c nh quy m doanh nghip, a bn v c cu hnh
thc php l c xc sut thot khi th trng cao hn. Tuy nhin, mt ln na cn lu
rng nhng nhn t truyn thng ny ch gii thch khong 4% mc bin ng ca xc
sut thot khi th trng.
Bng 3.8 Cc nhn t dn n vic thot khi th trng ca doanh nghip
Quy m doanh
nghip
a bn
Thot (khng tnh ngnh)
Hiu ng
bin
t-stat
Hiu ng
bin
t-stat
Nh
-0,043**
-1,98
-0,055**
-2,46
Va
-0,084**
-2,46
-0,097***
-2,92
H Ni
-0,035
-1,32
-0,027
-1,00
Ph Th
-0,095***
-3,58
-0,089***
-3,21
H Ty
-0,089***
-3,75
-0,083***
-3,17
Hi Phng
-0,082***
-2,89
-0,073**
-2,46
Ngh An
-0,125***
-5,36
-0,117***
-4,71
Qung Nam
-0,108***
-3,48
-0,097***
-2,94
Khnh Ha
-0,178***
-4,98
-0,171***
-4,61
Lm ng
0,055
1,12
0,073
1,43
-0,097***
-2,90
-0,084**
-2,38
0,067**
1,96
0,059*
1,70
Hp danh/Tp th/
HTX
0,015
0,28
0,005
0,09
Cng ty TNHH
0,043
1,62
0,036
1,33
Cng ty c phn
0,133**
2,38
0,133**
2,35
Long An
Ch s hu
Thot (c tnh ngnh)
T nhn/1 thnh vin
C bin gi ngnh
Khng
S quan st
2.508
2.508
Pseudo R-squared
0,03
0,04
Ghi ch: M hnh probit, hiu ng bin. Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v
1%. Nhm c s: Doanh nghip h gia nh ti TP. HCM, ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).
Mt trong s nhng chin lc i ph vi khng hong ca cc doanh nghip

c iu tra trong nm 2009 l vic tng ln ng k s lng doanh nghip tm thi
- 26 -
ng ca (tm ng ca t nht 1 nm trong giai on 2007 n 2009). Gn 400 doanh

nghip trong nm 2009 cho bit h tm thi ng ca do khng hong. Con s ny gim
mnh trong nm 2011 (ch c tng s 17 doanh nghip) v hin ny con s ny gim
xung bng mc c quan st trc khng hong. Tuy nhin, iu g xy ra i vi
cc doanh nghip tm thi ng ca? Cc doanh nghip nay vn ang hot ng hay
ng ca? Bng 3.9 cho thy xc sut thot khi th trng ca cc doanh nghip tm
thi ng ca trong giai on 2007-2009 cao hn ng k. Nhng doanh nghip ny
ch yu l cc doanh nghip nh v siu nh.
Tuy nhin, cc doanh nghip trc y tm thi ng ca nhng tn ti trong iu
tra nm 2011 c t l tng trng vic lm cao hn ng k so vi cc doanh nghip hot
ng trong thi gian khng hong ton cu. Cc doanh nghip tm thi ng ca nhng
tn ti c mc tng trng vic lm cao hn 5% trong giai on 2009-2011 so vi cc
doanh nghip hot ng trong thi gian khng hong ton cu (khng c bo co).
Bng 3.9 Tm thi ng ca trong nm 2009 v thot khi th trng
trong nm 2011
Tm thi ng ca 2009
Thot khi th trng 2011
Khng
C
- 27 -
Khng
1.324
290
(0,820)
(0,180)
272
118
(0,697)
(0,303)
4 Quan liu, phi chnh thc v cc chi ph phi chnh thc

Kinh doanh phi chnh thc, quy nh, thu v tham nhng l nhng ti c bn
trong bt c tho lun no v s pht trin ca khu vc t nhn v mi trng kinh
doanh ti cc quc gia ang pht trin. Chi ph tham gia ngnh chnh thc cao, chi ph
tun th php lut ln v cc mc thu sut khc nghit c th khin cc doanh nghip
hot ng kinh doanh di hnh thc phi chnh thc nhm gim chi ph. Kh nng ca
cc doanh nghip trong vic gim hoc trnh cc chi ph ny lin quan n vic hi l
quan chc nh nc. Tham nhng c th cng tn ti do cc quan chc nh nc li
dng cng vic bn rt tin ca t nhn thng qua cc vi phm do h tng tng
hoc c nhng din gii khng chun v php lut. Nhng vn v b my quan liu
phi chnh thc, h thng thu v tham nhng c nhng tc ng khc nhau n nhiu
doanh nghip, c bit n c cu php l ca doanh nghip.
4.1 Phi chnh thc, tng trng v thot khi th trng
Xc nh tnh phi chnh thc l mt thch thc. Trong chng ny chng ti xem
xt mt nh ngha v tnh chnh thc: (i) cc doanh nghip c m s doanh nghip
(ECN) hoc (ii) cc doanh nghip c c giy chng nhn ng k kinh doanh (BRC) v
m s thu. Bng 4.1 trnh by s liu thng k tm tt theo nh ngha trn trong nm
2009 v nm 2011.
Bng 4.1 Thng k tm tt tnh chnh thc
2009
2011
Chnh thc (Tng s)
64,5
(1.618)
70,3
(1.722)
Chnh thc (Cn bng)
63,5
(1.270)
69,6
(1.392)
Ghi ch: nh ngha chnh thc: Doanh nghip c m s doanh nghip hoc giy
chng nhn ng k kinh doanh v m s thu.
Theo nh ngha ca chng ti, trong nm 2011, 70% mu l cc doanh nghip

chnh thc. Tt c cc doanh nghip khng ng k l cc doanh nghip h gia nh. T
l ny tng so vi t l 64% c bo co trong nm 2009.
Bng 4.2 trnh by s bin ng tnh chnh thc khi s dng ma trn chuyn dch
truyn thng. u tin, 21,8% s doanh nghip phi chnh thc nm 2009 c giy
chng nhn ng k kinh doanh vo nm 2011. Bn cnh , ch c 2,9% s doanh
nghip chnh thc ng k trong nm 2009 khng c giy ng k kinh doanh chnh
thc trong nm 2011. Cc con s ny cho thy cc th tc ng k (v kin thc v lnh
vc ny) c ci thin ng k k t vng iu tra trc.
- 28 -
Bng 4.2 Ma trn chuyn dch tnh chnh thc
M s doanh nghip hoc giy chng nhn ng k kinh doanh v m s thu
Phi chnh thc 09

Chnh thc 09
Tng s
Phn trm
Phi
chnh
thc 11
Chnh
thc 11
Tng
s
Phn trm
570
159
729
(36,5)
(78,2)
(21,8)
(100,0)
37
1.233
1,270
(2,9)
(97,1)
(100,0)
607
1.392
1.999
(100,0)
(30,4)
(69,6)
(100,0)
(63,5)
By gi chng ti xem xt mi quan h gia tnh chnh thc, tng trng doanh
nghip v xc sut thot khi th trng5. Bng 4.3 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).
Tuy nhin, trong c hai phng trnh probit thot khi th trng (ct 3 v ct 4) khng
th tm thy mi quan h c ngha thng k tng i gia vic doanh nghip thot
khi th trng v tnh chnh thc.
5 Phn tch chi tit hn s dng s liu nm 2007 v 2009 v cc tc ng ca tnh phi chnh thc (v thay i t
doanh nghip phi chnh thc thnh doanh nghip chnh thc) c trong ti liu Rand v Torm (2012).
- 29 -
Bng 4.3 S bin ng ca doanh nghip v tnh chnh thc
Tng trng doanh nghip
Doanh nghip thot

khi th trng
-0,075***
-0,092***
0,002
-0.012
(9,96)
(10,11)
(0,20)
(1.28)
0,066***
0,087***
0,032
-0,015
(3,81)
(4,32)
(1,59)
(0.61)
C bin gi a bn
Khng
Khng
C bin gi ngnh
Khng
Khng
S quan st
1.999
1.999
2.508
2.508
Pseudo R-squared
0.05
0,08
0,00
0,04
Quy m doanh
nghip
log (s lng lao ng)
ng k
Chnh thc = 1
Ghi ch: Bnh phng nh nht thng thng v m hnh probit, hiu ng bin. Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng
ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm c s: Doanh nghip siu nh ti HCMC, ngnh ch bin thc phm
(ISIC 15).
4.2 Thu v cc chi ph phi chnh thc

Theo iu tra Hot ng kinh doanh ca Ngn hng th gii, iu tra nh gi
mi trng u t v ch s cnh tranh cp tnh, mc thun li trong hot ng kinh
doanh ti Vit Nam c ci thin ng k trong cc nm qua. Tuy nhin, vn cn
nhng vn ng quan tm lin quan n cc chi ph phi chnh thc m doanh nghip
phi i mt cng nh gnh nng hnh chnh v vic np thu. Mc cui cng ny tip
tc phn tng quan ca cc cuc iu tra trc v gnh nng thu v cc chi ph phi
chnh thc i vi cc doanh nghip ch bin Vit Nam cung cp ci nhn r nt hn
v nhng ci tin.
Bng 4.4 nghin cu s thay i t l li nhun thun trn tng li nhun nhm
a ra mt ch s v lng thu m cc doanh nghip phi ng trong giai on 20092011. Kt qu cho thy, cc doanh nghip h gia nh khng ng gp nhiu cho h
thng thu. T l li nhun thun trn tng li nhun l khong 92% trong c hai nm
2009 v 2011, khong t 11%-15% s doanh nghip h gia nh khng ng thu (t l
li nhun thun trn tng li nhun tng ng 1). Cn lu rng, hu ht cc doanh
nghip khng ng thu l cc doanh nghip h gia nh phi chnh thc trong nm 2009.
- 30 -
Bng 4.4 T l li nhun thun trn tng li nhun
T l li nhun thun/
Tng li nhun
T l doanh nghip
ng thu bng 0
2009
2011
2009
2011
Tng s
0,833
0,842
0,102
0,075
0,914
0,922
0,152
0,111
T nhn/1 thnh vin
0,669
0,736
0,000
0,000
Hp danh/Tp th/HTX
0,732
0,691
0,000
0,017
Cng ty TNHH
0,652
0,668
0,000
0,000
Cng ty c phn
0,666
0,631
0,000
0,000
Tnh phi chnh thc v thu c mi quan h 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 4.5 cho thy 34% s doanh nghip c cc khon
chi phi chnh thc trong nm 2009 v con s ny tng ln 38% trong nm 2011. iu
ny c ngha l s lng doanh nghip hi l tng ln k t nm 2007. Cng cn lu
rng cc doanh nghip chnh thc chi hi l l ch yu. 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 cn bng chng ti cng thy xu hng tng t nh trong ton
b mu. iu ny cho thy cc doanh nghip hin nay vn phi i mt vi p lc ngy
cng tng v vic phi chi cc khon chi phi chnh thc c vic.
- 31 -
Bng 4.5 Bao nhiu doanh nghip chi hi l?
Tng s
Mu cn bng
2009
2011
2009
2011
Cc doanh nghip chi hi l
861
937
664
743
(34,3)
(38,3)
(33,2)
(37,2)
738
823
575
658
(45,6)
(47,8)
(45,3)
(47,3)
123
114
89
85
(13,8)
(15,7)
(12,2)
(14,0)
Chnh thc
Phi chnh thc
Bng 4.6 trnh by ma trn chuyn dch hi l cho thy mt s doanh nghip khng
chi hi l trong nm 2009 bo co c chi ph phi chnh thc trong nm 2011 (31,3%).
Tng t, hn 505 s doanh nghip c khon chi phi chnh thc trong nm 2009 nhng
trong nm 2011 li bo co khng chi hi l. Ch c 335 trong s 1.999 doanh nghip
cho chi hi l trong c nm 2009 v 2011.
Bng 4.6 Bao nhiu doanh nghip chi hi l?
Khng
hi l 11
C hi
l 11
Tng
s
Phn
trm
917
418
1335
(66,8)
(68,7)
(31,3)
(100,0)
339
325
664
(51,1)
(48,9)
(100,0)
Tng s
1256
743
1999
(100,0)
Phn trm
(62,8)
(37,2)
(100,0)
Khng hi l 09
C hi l 09
(33,2)
Hnh 4.1 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 tng ln so vi t l 26%
trong nm 2009. Gn 26% cc khon chi phi chnh thc c lin quan n cc dch v
cng (tng ln so vi t l 20% trong nm 2009).
- 32 -
C IM MI TRNG KINH DOANH VIT NAM
Hnh 4.1 Chi hi l c dng vo mc ch g?

35
30
25
Phn trm
20
2009
2011
15
10
5
0
kt ni
c vi cc
dch v cng
c c
giy php
v s
cho php
i ph
thu v
ngi
thu thu
c c
hp ng
ca chnh ph/
ti sn cng
i
ph vi
khch hng
Khc
Cui cng, quay v cu hi nhng doanh nghip ch bin no chi hi l, Bng 4.7
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 vic ng k. Cc ct 1 v 2
s dng ton b b s liu trong khi ct 3 v 4 bo co kt qu ca mu cn bng. Ct
5 bo co kt qu cc tc ng c nh (m hnh xc sut tuyn).
Bng 4.7 Cc yu t quyt nh vic hi l: Cc nghi vn thng thng
Tng s
Coef
t-stats
Tng s
Coef
t-stats
Mu cn bng
Coef
t-stats
Mu cn bng
Coef
t-stats
Coef
FE
t-stats
Quy m ln(s
doanh lao
nghip ng) 0,097*** (13,33) 0,093*** (11,99) 0,105*** (13.01) 0,103*** (12,00) 0,069*** (2,80)
ng k
(ng k = 1)
0,222*** (12,76) 0,232*** (11,76) 0,228*** (11.90) 0,237*** (10,99) 0,104** (2,29)
Bin gi a bn
Khng
C
Khng
C
..
Bin gi ngnh
Khng
C
Khng
C
..
S quan st
4.957
4.957
3.998
3.998
3.998 (1.999)
Pseudo
R-squared
0.11
0,12
0,13
0,14
,,
Ghi ch: Probit tng hp + Tc ng c nh (LPM). Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%.
Nhm c s: doanh nghip siu nh ti HCMC, ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15)
- 33 -
Th nht, cc doanh nghip ln c xc sut chi hi l cao hn khong 10% so vi

cc doanh nghip siu nh. Th hai, 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 22-23% so vi cc doanh
nghip phi chnh thc. Cui cng, cc doanh nghip ti min Nam c t l chi hi l
thp hn so vi cc doanh nghip cng c tnh ti min Bc (khng a vo bng).
Cui cng, Bng 4.8 nghin cu mi quan h gia hi l v s bin ng ca
doanh nghip (tng trng vic lm v doanh nghip thot khi th trng). Cc doanh
nghip chi hi l khng m rng lc lng lao ng ca mnh nhiu hn so vi cc
doanh nghip khng chi hi l. Bn cnh , kt qu cho thy cc doanh nghip chi hi
l c xc sut thot khi th trng cao hn (3%).
Bng 4.8 Cc yu t quyt nh vic hi l: Cc nghi vn thng thng
Quy m doanh
nghip (log s
lng lao ng)
ng k (C=1)
Doanh nghip chi
hi l (C=1)
Thnh th (C=1)
Min Nam (C=1)
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
Pseudo R-squared
Tng trng vic lm

Ch s
t-stat
Ch s
-0,077*** (-9,81) -0,089***

0,064*** (3,57) 0,069***
0,014
(0,82)
Khng
1.999
0,05
t-stat
Thot khi th trng

Ch s t-stat Ch s
t-stat
(-9,80) -0,002 (-0,24)

(3,46) 0,027 (1,33)
-0,014
-0,030
(-1,54)
(-1,23)
0,014
(0,81) 0,033* (1,72) 0,035* (1,83)
0,038**
(2,02)
0,086*** (4,34)
-0,022
(-1,36)
0,044** (2,33)
C
Khng
C
1.999
2.508
2.508
0,07
0,00
0,03
Ghi ch: OLS v Probit. Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm c s:
doanh nghip siu nh ti HCMC, ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).
- 34 -
5 a dng ha, ci tin v nng sut lao ng

Ni dung ca chng ny tp trung nghin cu nhng c tnh ca sn xut v
cng ngh cng nh nng sut lao ng ca DNNVV trong nm 2011 v so snh vi
cc kt qu trong nm 2009 cng nh c th so snh vi nghin cu c thc hin
ti CIEM (2011).
5.1 a dng ha v ci tin
Mt doanh nghip c xc nh l doanh nghip a dng ha nu doanh nghip
sn xut nhiu sn phm cp 4 s theo bng phn ngnh chun quc t (ISIC). a
dng ha sn phm c k vng l s gim kh nng b tn thng ca doanh nghip
trc cc c sc, do vy lm tng kh nng tn ti ca doanh nghip. Tuy nhin, a dng
ha sn phm s dn ti gim nng sut trong ngn hn. Bng 5.1 trnh by mc a
dng ha trung bnh theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn. Trong nm 2009, khong
15% s doanh nghip sn xut nhiu sn phm (ISIC cp 4 s). Tuy nhin, con s ny
gim xung cn 11% trong nm 2011. Mt cch tng quan, cc doanh nghip Vit Nam
c tnh chuyn mn ha kh cao. Tnh a dng ha thp hn cc doanh nghip siu
nh c th phn nh tnh cnh tranh thp hn hoc cc doanh nghip ny khng nng
lc sn xut nhiu hn mt sn phm. Cc doanh nghip nng thn cng nh cc
doanh nghip min Bc c xu hng a dng ha cao hn.
Bng 5.1 T l a dng ha v ci tin (phn trm)
a dng ha (Nhiu sn
phm ISIC cp 4 s)
Ci tin 1 (Pht trin

sn phm mi)
Ci tin 2 (Ci tin sn

phm hin ti)
2009
2011
2009
2011
2009
2011
Tng s
14,6
11,1
2,7
4,2
41,4
38,2
Siu nh
12,1
10,3
1,9
3,7
33,0
32,6
Nh
18,5
11,2
3,6
4,9
58,3
49,1
Va
24,1
20,8
7,4
8,3
59,9
56,9
Thnh th
13,1
9,3
3,4
5,3
49,3
46,5
Nng thn
15,7
12,4
2,2
3,4
35,4
32,0
Min Nam
11,5
8,3
3,7
3,5
44,8
42,6
Min Bc
16,7
13,1
2,0
4,8
39,0
35,0
Ghi ch: Cc con s trong ngoc n.
- 35 -
Cng c kin cho rng mc ci tin nn c xem l mt ng lc tim nng

ca s nng ng ca doanh nghip. Mt doanh nghip c cho l c tnh ci tin nu
doanh nghip bt u sn xut mt sn phm mi (ISIC cp 4) trong hai nm qua (ci
tin 1) hoc doanh nghip to ra s ci tin ng k i vi cc sn phm hin ti (ci
tin 2). T Bng 5.1 chng ta thy t l doanh nghip gii thiu sn phm mi kh thp
mc d t l ny tng so vi nm 2009. Cc doanh nghip ln hn c xu hng gii
thiu sn phm mi cao hn v cc doanh nghip ti khu vc thnh th c tnh ci tin
cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip ti nng thn. T l doanh nghip ti min Bc gii
thiu sn phm mi tng t 2% trong nm 2009 ln 4,8% trong nm 2011 trong khi t
l ci tin ti min Nam khng thay i trong cng k.
T l doanh nghip ci tin cc sn phm hin ti gim t 41% xung cn 38%.
c bit cc doanh nghip quy m nh chim vai tr ch o trong s st gim ny. Mt
ln na cc doanh nghip thnh th v cc doanh nghip ti min Nam c xu hng ci
tin sn phm hin ti cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip ti khu vc nng thn min Nam.
Bng 5.2 a dng ha v ci tin, theo ngnh
ISIC
(cp 4
s)
15
20
25
26
28
36
Thc phm v ung

Sn phm g
Sn phm cao su
Sn phm kim loi c
Ni tht
Ci tin
(pht trin sn
phm mi)
a dng ha
2009
0,073
0,256
0,142
0,157
0,185
0,223
2011
0,061
0,147
0,126
0,137
0,136
0,152
2009
0,013
0,024
0,047
0,029
0,026
0,043
2011
0,023
0,027
0,039
0,049
0,065
0,076
Ci tin
(ci tin sn
phm hin ti)
2009
0,228
0,446
0,604
0,441
0,536
0,561
2011
0,239
0,304
0,495
0,304
0,462
0,601
Chi ch: Ch bao gm cc ngnh c nhiu hn 100 quan st mi nm.
Bng 5.2 nghin cu t l a dang ha v ci tin ca cc ngnh c chn. Cc

doanh nghip thc phm v ung (ISIC 15) c t l a dng ha v ci tin thp hn
so vi cc doanh nghip trong cc ngnh khc. Bn cnh , cc doanh nghip trong
ngnh ni tht (ISIC 36) c t l a dng ha v ci tin cao hn.
Bng 5.3 nghin cu cc ma trn chuyn dch a dng ha v ci tin i vi mu
cn bng. Th nht, ch c 7,4% doanh nghip khng a dng ha trong nm 2009
chuyn sang dng t chuyn mn ha hn trong nm 2011. Tuy nhin, c 64,2% doanh
nghip a dng ha trong nm 2009 khng nh xu hng chuyn dch theo hng
- 36 -
chuyn mn ha tp trung vo mt sn phm ISIC cp 4 trong nm 2011.

Th hai, ci tin sn phm mi ca cng doanh nghip him khi xy ra vo cc
nm th hai. Ch c 5 doanh nghip gii thiu sn phm mi trong c hai nm 2009
v 2011. Bn cnh , 93% doanh nghip khng gii thiu sn phm mi trong 4 nm
c nghin cu.
Th ba, a s cc doanh nghip thc hin ci tin cc sn phm hin ti, ch c
40% (800 trong s 1.998) doanh nghip khng ci tin sn phm hin ti trong 4 nm
c nghin cu. Bn cnh , 31% doanh nghip khng ci tin cc sn phm hin ti
trong nm 2009 c thc hin thay i i vi cc sn phm trong nm 2011.
Cc kt qu c tnh probit tng hp nhm m t cc c tnh a dng ha v ci
tin s dng quy m doanh nghip, a bn, loi hnh s hu v ngnh c bo co
cng vi thng k t gp trong Bng 5.4.
Bng 5.3 Ma trn chuyn dch a dng ha v ci tin
a dng ha
Khng 2009
C 2009
Tng s
Phn trm
Ci tin 1
Khng 2009
C 2009
Tng s
Phn trm
Ci tin 2
Khng 2009
C 2009
Tng s
Phn trm
Khng 2011
1.566
(92,6)
192
(64,2)
1.758
(88,3)
C 2011
126
(7,4)
107
(35,8)
233
(11,7)
Tng s
1.692
(100,0)
299
(100,0)
1.991
(100,0)
Phn trm
(85,0)
Khng 2011
1.854
(95,1)
44
(89,8)
1.898
(95,0)
C 2011
95
(4,9)
5
(10,2)
100
(5,0)
Tng s
1.949
(100,0)
49
(100,0)
1.998
(100,0)
Phn trm
(97,5)
Khng 2011
800
(69,2)
452
(53,7)
1.252
(62,7)
C 2011
356
(30,8)
390
(46,3)
746
(37,3)
Tng s
1.156
(100,0)
842
(100,0)
1.998
(100,0)
Phn trm
(57,9)
- 37 -
(15,0)
(100,0)
(2,5)
(100,0)
(42,1)
(100,0)
Th nht, tc ng quy m c bo co trong Bng 5.1 c khng nh, cc

doanh nghip ln hn a dng ha v ci tin hn so vi cc doanh nghip nh hn.
Th hai, cc doanh nghip h gia nh c xu hng a dng ha thp hn trong khi c
lng ch s m ch c xc nh cho ci tin 2. Th ba, cc doanh nghip thnh th a
dng ha t hn nhng c xu hng ci tin sn phm hin ti cao hn so vi cc doanh
nghip nng thn. Kt lun tng t cng c a ra khi so snh cc doanh nghip
ti min Nam v min Bc. iu ny c th c gii thch do tnh cnh tranh cao hn
khu vc thnh th min Nam (Thnh ph H Ch Minh) so vi cc tnh thnh khc
trong mu. Kt qu ny khng nh nhng pht hin ca CIEM (2011). Cui cng, bin
gi thi gian khng nh rng cc doanh nghip ang a dng ha v ci tin sn phm
vi tn sut thp hn trong nm 2011 so vi nm 2009, trong khi bin gi thi gian
dng v ln cho thy c s st gim nh t nm 2009 n nm 2011 trong xc sut gii
thiu sn phm mi (c nh quy m doanh nghip, c cu php l, a bn v ngnh).
Bng 5.4 Cc c tnh a dng ha v ci tin
Quy m doanh nghip

(log s lng lao ng)
Doanh nghip h gia
nh (C=1)
Thnh th (C=1)
Min Nam (C=1)
Bin gi nm
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
Pseudo R-squared
a dng ha
Ch s
t-stat
Ci tin 1
Ch s
t-stat
Ci tin 2
Ch s
t-stat
0,013**
(2,03)
0,006*
(1,85)
0,093***
(9,32)
-0,074***
-0,050***
-0,037***
-0,033***
C
3.980
0,06
(-4,69)
(-4,04)
(-3,37)
(-3,18)
-0,013
0,006
0,004
0,022***
C
3.980
0,07
(-1,61)
(0,95)
(0,74)
(4,23)
-0,040*
0,046**
0,044***
-0,045***
C
3.980
0,10
(-1,70)
(2,38)
(2,56)
(-2,78)
Ghi ch: Probit, tc ng bin. Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm
c s: doanh nghip siu nh ti HCMC, ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).
Bng 5.5 nghin cu mi quan h gia s a dng ha, ci tin v s nng ng

ca doanh nghip (tng trng vic lm v doanh nghip thot khi th trng). Ci tin
2 ca ba bin c gii thiu trn c gi tr dng v c xc nh r trong phng
trnh tng trng vic lm. Cc doanh nghip ci tin sn phm hin ti c mc tng
trng vic lm cao hn 3% so vi cc doanh nghip khng ci tin trong giai on
2009-2011. Cc doanh nghip ci tin sn phm hin ti (ci tin 2) c t l xu hng
thot khi th trng thp hn 4,1%. Cc ch tiu a dng ha v ci tin 1 khng c
xc nh r trong bt k c tnh bin ng no ca doanh nghip.
- 38 -
Bng 5.5 a dng ha, ci tin v bin ng doanh nghip
Tng trng vic lm (OLS)
Ch s
t-stat
a dng ha
-0,029
(-1,63)
Ci tin 1
Ch s
t-stat
0,054
(1,28)
Ci tin 2
Quy m doanh nghip
(log s lng lao ng)
-0,123***
Ch s
t-stat
0,029**
(2,04)
(-11,00)
-0,123*** (-11,01)
-0,125*** (-11,22)

(C=1)
-0,195***
(-7,05)
-0,191*** (-6,99)
-0,190*** (-6,95)
Thnh th (C=1)
0,039**
(2,16)
0,041**
(2,24)
0,040**
(2,20)
Min Nam (C=1)
0,002
(0,11)
0,002
(0,12)
0,002
(0,16)
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
1.992
1.992
1.992
R-squared
0,10
0,10
0,10
Thot khi th trng (Probit)
Ch s
t-stat
a dng ha
-0,020
(-0,86)
Ci tin 1
Ch s
t-stat
0,058
(1,14)
Ci tin 2
Quy m doanh nghip
(log s lng lao ng)
-0,023**
Ch s
t-stat
-0,041**
(-2,36)
(-2,30)
-0,024**
(-2,39)
-0,020*
(-1,91)

(C=1)
-0,035
(-1,46)
-0,032
(-1,33)
-0,034
(-1,41)
Thnh th (C=1)
0,082***
(4,20)
0,083*** (4,25)
0,085*** (4,36)
Min Nam (C=1)
0,033*
(1,91)
0,033*
0,034**
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
2.501
2.501
2.501
Pseudo R-squared
0,03
0,03
0,03
(1,95)
(2,02)
Ghi ch: OLS v cc c tnh Probit, tc ng bin. Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%,
5% v 1%. Nhm c s: doanh nghip siu nh ti HCMC, ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).
- 39 -
5.2 Cc c tnh ca nng sut lao ng

Tng t nh bo co cuc iu tra DNNVV nm 2009, ni dung ny ca bo co
tp trung phn tch hai cch o lng khc nhau v nng sut lao ng: (1) Doanh thu
thc trn lao ng ton thi gian v (2) Gi tr gia tng thc trn lao ng ton thi gian.
Phn tch ny c thc hin da trn 1.927 doanh nghip, tt c cc doanh nghip ny
u tham gia phng vn trong c cuc iu tra nm 2009 v nm 2011. Bng 5.6 trnh
by hai o lng nng sut lao ng theo quy m v a bn. Doanh thu thc bnh qun
trn lao ng ton thi gian l 73 triu ng trong nm 2011 trong khi gi tr gia tng
thc trn lao ng ton thi gian l 20 triu ng. C hai con s ny u phn nh mc
tng trng ng k ca nng sut lao ng thc ca nm 2011 so vi nm 2009. Tng
trng nng sut lao ng tp trung ch yu cc doanh nghip nh v siu nh. Bn
cnh , cc doanh nghip ti min Bc c ci tin ng k khi lng sn phm
u ra trn lao ng bng mc nng sut lao ng ca cc doanh nghip tng ng ti
min Nam.
Bng 5.6 Nng sut lao ng theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn
Nng sut lao ng 1
Nng sut lao ng 2
2009
2011
Tng trng
2009
2011
Tng trng
Tng s
64,0
73,0
1,7 [1,2]
15,8
20,1
1,7 [1,2]
Siu nh
51,6
64,1
1,8
12,5
17,4
1,8
Nh
82,9
89,6
1,6
21,3
25,3
1,6
Va
116,5
108,9
1,3
27,8
29,4
1,3
Thnh th
81,0
90,6
1,8
21,5
25,7
1,6
Nng thn
52,4
61,0
1,7
11,9
16,2
1,8
Min Nam
71,1
73,9
1,5
17,6
22,6
1,6
Min Bc
59,3
72,5
1,9
14,6
18,4
1,8
Ghi ch: Triu ng. Tng trng nng sut lao ng trung bnh (LP) c xc nh l (LP
2011/LP 2009). Trung v ca tng trng LP trong ngoc n.
Bng 5.7 trnh by kt qu s liu nng sut lao ng theo ngnh. Th nht, doanh
thu thc bnh qun v gi tr gia tng trn lao ng ton thi gian kh cao trong ngnh
cao su (ISIC 25) vi 116 triu ng (doanh thu) v 28 triu ng (gi tr gia tng). Tuy
nhin, ngnh cao su l ngnh ci tin nng sut lao ng t nht (trong s 6 ngnh ln
nht). Trung v ca t l tng trng nng sut lao ng ln hn 1 trong tt c cc ngnh
mt ln na nhn mnh nhng ci tin ln ni chung v nng sut lao ng ca cc
- 40 -
DNNVV ca Vit Nam. Tuy nhin, s bin ng gia cc doanh nghip cng rt ln
c th hin bng t l gn 40% s doanh nghip c mc tng trng nng sut lao
ng m trong giai on 2009 - 2011.
Bng 5.7 Nng sut lao ng theo ngnh
ISIC
(cp 4)
LP 1
2009
LP 2
2011
2009
2011
LP 1
LP 2
Tng
trng
Tng
trng
15
Thc phm v ung
60,9
73,8
13,6
18,0
1,81
1,86
20
Sn phm g
47,6
55,3
12,1
15,4
1,79
1,65
25
Sn phm cao su
117,0
115,9
26,5
28,1
1,36
1,29
26
59,5
54,3
14,8
18,5
1,43
1,72
28
Sn phm kim loi c
59,8
71,3
15,4
19,4
1,65
1,57
36
Ni tht
61,3
61,3
15,4
19,5
1,59
1,61
0,40
0,37
T l doanh nghip c mc tng

trng LP m (Tng trng LP <1)
Ghi ch: Ch bao gm cc ngnh c hn 100 quan st mi nm.
Cui cng, cc kt qu c lng bnh phng nh nht ch ra mi quan h gia

tng trng nng sut lao ng (2009 - 2011) v tp hp cc bin chun ( mc nm
2009) (a bn, hnh thc s hu, ngnh v quy m doanh nghip) v cc bin ch tiu
v a dng ha v ci tin c trnh by trong Bng 5.8. Bn cnh chng ti kim
sot i vi mc nng sut lao ng nm 2009. Sai s chun gp c ghi ch bn cnh
cc kt qu c lng.
- 41 -
Bng 5.8 Cc c tnh ca nng sut lao ng
Tng trng nng sut lao ng (2009 to 2011)

dln(LP1)
dln(LP2)
Ch s
t-stat
Ch s
t-stat
Mc nng sut lao ng (log)
-0,536***
(-21,90)
-0,629***
(-22,96)
Quy m doanh nghip (log s lng lao

ng)
0,116***
(5,37)
0,129***
(6,72)
a dng ha (C=1)
0,004
(0,09)
-0,038
(-0,90)
Ci tin 1 (C =1)
-0,014
(-0,16)
-0,042
(-0,45)
Ci tin 2 (C =1)
-0,007
(-0,18)
0,056*
(1,81)
Doanh nghip h gia nh (C=1)
0,036
(0,69)
0,008
(0,18)
Thnh th (C=1)
0,137***
(3,47)
0,146***
(4,03)
Min Nam (C=1)
-0,077**
(-2,32)
0,023
(0,78)
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
1.920
1.920
Pseudo R-squared
0,29
0,31
Ghi ch: OLS. Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm c s: Doanh nghip
siu nh ti TP H Ch Minh, ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).
Bng 5.8 cho thy m hnh doanh thu gim , c ngha l cc doanh nghip c nng
sut lao ng ban u cao c mc tng trng nng sut lao ng thp hn theo thi
gian. Th hai, nng sut lao ng tng cng vi quy m doanh nghip, khng ph thuc
vo phng php tnh nng sut lao ng, khng nh kt qu trong Bng 5.6. Th ba,
nhng ci tin i vi cc sn phm hin ti c tng quan thun vi tng trng nng
sut lao ng gi tr gia tng. iu ny c ngha l cc doanh nghip c xu hng
tng gi tr gia tng trn lao ng bng cch tng hp thay i vo cc sn phm hin
ti. Th t, cc doanh nghip ti khu vc thnh th c mc tng trng nng sut lao
ng cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip ti nng thn. Cui cng, cc doanh nghip ti
min Nam dng nh c tng trng doanh thu trn lao ng thp hn so vi cc doanh
nghip ti min Bc (c nh quy m, c cu php l, ngnh, v.v).
- 42 -
6 u t v tip cn tn dng
Kh khn trong th trng tn dng c cc doanh nghip xem nh ro cn ln
nht i vi s pht trin ca cc DNNVV ti Vit Nam. Do vy phn ny xem xt cc
c im u t v cc kh khn trong tip cn tn dng ca doanh nghip ti Vit Nam.
phn tch s bin ng u t v s thay i ca kh khn v tn dng theo thi gian,
b s liu ca mu cn bng (2009 v 2011) c s dng.
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 2009, 61% ca
2.508 doanh nghip c thc hin u t so vi t l 56% trong nm 2011. Xc sut u
t 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 doanh nghip khng phi h gia nh thc hin
u t ln hn so vi cc doanh nghip h gia nh v doanh nghip c a bn 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.
Bng 6.1 u t mi
Tng s
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Doanh nghip phi h gia nh
Thnh th
Nng thn
Min Nam
Min Bc
2009
S quan st
2.508
1.682
664
162
1.672
836
1.090
1.418
1.041
1.467
T l
0,609
0,536
0,735
0,846
0,544
0,738
0,536
0,665
0,508
0,680
2011
S quan st
2.446
1.686
616
144
1.587
859
1.048
1.398
1.032
1.414
T l
0,562
0,498
0,674
0,833
0,505
0,667
0,529
0,587
0,453
0,641
Ghi ch: Thiu 3 quan st trong nm 2011 do bo co sai.
Bng 6.2 nghin cu tnh hnh u t ca cc DNNVV Vit Nam. Ch c 444

doanh nghip trong 1.997 doanh nghip khng c u t mi trong 4 nm qua, hn
40% doanh nghip c u t mi trong c hai nm 2009 v 2011 v 42% doanh nghip
khng u t trong nm 2009 c u t trong nm 2011. Nhn chung, c th kt lun
rng phn ln cc DNNVV c thc hin u t trong thi gian qua.
- 43 -
Bng 6.3 quan st mi tng quan gia xc sut u t v cc nhn t nh hng

truyn thng. Trong bng, bin gi thi gian c gi tr m v c xc nh c lp so
vi mu (ton b mu hoc mu cn bng) hoc la chn ch s c lng (c lng
Probit tng hp hoc m hnh xc sut tuyn tc ng c nh), khng nh s st gim
chung t l cc doanh nghip c thc hin u t mi trong nm 2011 so vi nm 2009.
Bng 6.2 Tnh hnh u t (Ma trn chuyn dch u t)
Ma trn chuyn dch u t
Khng 2011
C 2011
Tng s
Phn trm
Khng
2009
444
319
763
(38,2)
(58,2)
(41,8)
(100,0)
426
808
1.234
(34,5)
(65,5)
(100,0)
Tng s
870
1.127
1.997
(100,0)
Phn trm
(43,6)
(56,4)
(100,0)
C 2009
(61,8)
Bn cnh , Bng 6.3 cho thy cc doanh nghip ln hn c xc sut thc hin
u t mi cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip nh hn (c nh hnh thc php l, a
bn v ngnh). c lng ny gim mt na khi c nh cc c tnh ca doanh nghip
khng c quan st nhng c lng vn c xc nh r. Cc doanh nghip h gia
nh c xu hng u t t hn so vi cc doanh nghip c tnh chnh thc cao hn v
c phn ngc nhin khi thy cc doanh nghip thnh th ti min Nam dng nh c xc
sut u t thp hn ng k so vi cc doanh nghip nng thn min Bc tng ng.
- 44 -
Bng 6.3 Cc c im u t
Tng s
Mu cn bng
FE
t-stat
Ch s
t-stat
Ch s
t-stat
Quy m doanh nghip

(log s lng lao ng) 0,150***
(15,33)
0,157***
(14,18)
0,077***
(3,26)
Doanh nghip h gia

nh (C=1)
-0,048**
(-2,28)
-0,050**
(-2,07)
Thnh th (C=1)
-0,193***
(-10,92)
-0,195*** (-9,72)
Min Nam (C=1)
-0,200***
(-12,92)
-0,183*** (-10,54)
Bin gi nm
-0,042***
(-2,88)
-0,050*** (-3,05)
-0,047*** (-3,45)
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
4.954
3.994
3.994
Pseudo R-squared
0,12
0,12
0,07
Ch s
Ghi ch: Probit + Tc ng c nh (M hnh xc sut tuyn). Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc
ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm c s: doanh nghip siu nh ti HCMC, ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).
Hnh 6.1 trnh by ngn sch ca cc khon u t mi. Bnh qun, u t t li

nhun gi li nm 2011 tng ln so vi nm 2009. Tnh bnh qun, 44% u t mi
trong hai nm qua c ngun gc t li nhun gi li tng so 35% trong iu tra nm
2009 (ch xem xt mnh mu cn bng). T l u t c ngun vn t tn dng chnh
thc gi t 52% xung 47%. Do vy, ti chnh phi chnh thc tip tc ng vai tr nh
hn khi doanh nghip tm kim ngun ti chnh bn ngoi (t l ti chnh phi chnh thc
gim t nm 2005).
60
Hnh 6.1 u t c ngun gc ti chnh t u?
50
40
30
2009
20
2011
10
0
Li nhun
gi li
Vay ngn hng

ngun ti chnh
chnh thc
khc
Khon vay
phi
chnh thc
- 45 -
Khc
Bng 6.4 xem xt tng mu cc khon u t nm 2011 vi kt qu l mc tng

nh (nu so snh vi mu cn bng trong Hnh 6.1) v t l bnh qun u t c ngun
vn t li nhun gi li. Bn cnh , cc doanh nghip siu nh c xu hng u t t
ngun li nhun gi li hoc ngun ti chnh phi chnh thc. Cc doanh nghip thnh
th cng s dng li nhun gi li v ngun ti chnh phi chnh thc thng xuyn hn
cho u t.
Bng 6.4 Ngun ti chnh u t, theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn
Li nhun gi li
Vay chnh thc
Vay khng chnh thc
Phn trm
Phn trm
Phn trm
Tng s
45,3
46,3
8,4
Siu nh
49,5
40,6
9,9
Nh
38,9
54,1
7,0
Va
38,3
59,2
2,5
49,5
41,8
8,7
Doanh nghip phi gia nh
39,5
52,6
8,0
Thnh th
51,0
38,4
10,6
Nng thn
41,4
51,7
6,9
Min Nam
50,0
44,4
5,6
Min Bc
42,9
47,3
9,8
Ghi ch: Tng mu nm 2011. 1.349 quan st. Cc khon vay ti chnh chnh thc c tnh nh s d.
6.2 Tn dng
Tng t cc iu tra DNNVV trc (CIEM, 2007, 2009, 2011), t l n ca cc
doanh nghip Vit Nam l rt thp, c th l do hn ch thanh khon v hn ch trong
tip cn ti chnh (Rand, 2007). Tuy nhin, t l n so vi ti sn thp ca cc DNNVV
Vit Nam ph hp vi kt qu l t l 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 cn bng. Trong nm 2011, 295 (37% trong nm 2009)
doanh nghip np h s xin vay chnh thc v 28% (20% trong nm 2009) c vn
trong vic c c khon vay. Nhng kt qu ny l c lp v chng ti tp trung vo
ton b mu hoc mu cn bng.
- 46 -
Bng 6.5 Tip cn tn dng

2011 Ton b mu
Doanh nghip np h s vay
chnh thc
Gp vn trong vic c c
khon vay
2011 Cn bng
Khng
Khng
(719)
(1.729)
(597)
(1.401)
29,4
70,6
29,9
70,1
Khng
Khng
200
(519)
(168)
(429)
27,8
72,2
28,1
72,9
Ghi ch: Ton b mu v mu cn bng 2011. S liu trong ngoc n l s quan st.
Mt s doanh nghip khng np h s xin vay tn dng chnh thc c th vn

gp kh khn tn dng. Tuy nhin, Hnh 6.2 gii thch ti sao nhng doanh nghip ny
khng np h s xin vay v 57% s doanh nghip khng np h s xin vay v h cm
thy rng h khng c nhu cu. Cc doanh nghip ny khng th c xp vo nhm
cc doanh nghip c kh khn tn dng. Do vy, trong s nhm khng np h s (1.729
doanh nghip), ch c 43% c th c phn loi l doanh nghip gp kh khn tn
dng, a s doanh nghip ny vo nhm cc doanh nghip c kh khn tn dng c
ngha l 752 doanh nghip c tip cn hn ch vi tn dng, tng ng vi 31% mu.
B sung cc doanh nghip c tip cn hn ch (200 doanh nghip c vn trong vic
c c khon vay) c ngha l 39% s doanh nghip c tip cn hn ch hoc gp kh
khn, gn bng mc quan st c trong cc nm trc y.
Hnh 6.2 Ti sao doanh nghip khng np h s vay?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Th
chp
khng
hp l
Khng
mun
mc
n
Th
tc
kh
vay
Khng
cn
vay
- 47 -
Li
sut
qu
cao
n
nhiu
Khc
Bng 6.6 trnh by mi quan h gia tn dng chnh thc v tn dng phi chnh
thc. Th nht, chng ti thy s lng doanh nghip c khon vay phi chnh thc cao
gp i so vi s doanh nghip c khon vay chnh thc. So snh s liu ny vi kt
qu trong Bng 6.4 (cc khon vay phi chnh thc chim 8-9% tng u t) cho thy
cc khon vay phi chnh thc c gi tr nh nhng l mt cu thnh thng xuyn trong
k hoch ti chnh ca cc DNNVV. Th hai, 560 doanh nghip trong s 2.449 doanh
nghip c c cc khon vay chnh thc v phi chnh thc v 59% s doanh nghip
khng c tip cn tn dng chnh thc s dng cc khon vay phi chnh thc.
Bng 6.6: Vay phi chnh thc v ro cn tn dng
Vay phi chnh

thc
Vay chnh thc
Khng
Tng s
Phn
trm
560
1.024
1.584
(64,7)
(35,4)
(64,6)
(100,0)
159
705
864
(18,4)
(81,6)
(100,0)
Tng s
719
1.729
2.448
(100,0)
Phn trm
(29,4)
(70,6)
(100,0)
Khng
(35,3)
Bng 6.7 nghin cu cc c tnh ca tn dng chnh thc v phi chnh thc i
vi ton b mu v tng mu khi nhng doanh nghip khng c nhu cu tn dng b loi
b. Th nht, cc doanh nghip ln hn c xu hng c c tn dng, c chnh thc
v phi chnh thc. Tuy nhin, cn lu rng quy m doanh nghip khng phi l nhn
t quyt nh quan trng trong vic tip cn c vi ti chnh phi chnh thc khi cc
doanh nghip khng c nhu cu tn dng b loi khi mu.
- 48 -
Bng 6.7 Cc c tnh tip cn tn dng
Tnh dng chn thc
Tnh dng phi

chnh thc
Tn dng (Chnh thc

+ Phi chnh thc)
Ch s
t-stat
Ch s
t-stat
Ch s
t-stat
Quy m doanh nghip (log s

lng lao ng)
0,141***
(12,09)
0,071***
(5,41)
0,105***
(8,10)
-0,039
(-1,45)
-0,110***
(-3,88)
-0,083***
(-3,13)
Thnh th (C=1)
-0,213***
(-9,41)
-0,113***
(-4,76)
-0,182***
(-8,03)
Min Nam (C=1)
-0,094***
(-4,70)
-0,125*** (-6,00)
-0,135***
(-6,86)
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
2.448
2.448
2.448
Pseudo R-squared
0,13
0,06
0,10
Tn dng (Chnh thc

+ Phi chnh thc)
Loi nhng doanh nghip khng c nhu cu tn dng
Tn dng chnh thc
Tn dng phi chnh

thc
Ch s
t-stat
Ch s
t-stat
Ch s
t-stat
Quy m doanh nghip (log s

lng lao ng)
0,144***
(10,34)
0,002
(0,18)
0,027***
(3,07)
-0,038
(-1,18)
-0,109*** (-4,28)
-0,071***
(-3,72)
Thnh th (C=1)
-0,223***
(-8,22)
-0,020
(-0,94)
-0,079***
(-4,93)
Min Nam (C=1)
-0,085***
(-3,55)
-0,057*** (-3,02)
-0,055***
(-3,81)
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
1.958
1.958
1.958
Pseudo R-squared
0,10
0,03
0,07
Ghi ch: Probit, tc ng bin. Sai s chun gp. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm c
s: doanh nghip siu nh ti HCMC, ngnh ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).
Cc doanh nghip h gia nh c xu hng t c tn dng phi chnh thc. iu ny

c ngha l cc doanh nghip chnh thc da vo cc ngun u t ti chnh phi chnh
thc nhiu hn. Bn cnh , cc doanh nghip ti khu vc thnh th v ti min Nam
c xu hng t tip cn tn dng mc d bin gi thnh th khng xc nh r trong c
tnh tn dng phi chnh thc tr cc doanh nghip khng c nhu cu tn dng. Tuy nhin
hn 20% cc doanh nghip thnh th t c xu hng vay tn dng chnh thc hn so vi
cc doanh nghip nng thn v 9% cc doanh nghip min Nam t c xu hng vay tn
- 49 -
dng chnh thc hn so vi cc doanh nghip min Bc khng ph thuc vo mu c

chn. Nh trong cc cuc iu tra trc, cc DNNVV nh hn ti Thnh ph H Ch
Minh c xu hng da vo li nhun gi li u t cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip
tng ng ti cc tnh thnh khc. iu ny c th do tn dng sn c cho cc doanh
nghip nh hn ti Thnh ph H Ch Minh nhng cng c th l kt qu ca t l li
nhun trn ti sn ni chung cao hn ti khu vc Thnh ph H Ch Minh thc hin u
t s dng li nhun gi li c tnh hin thc cao hn.
- 50 -
7 Vic lm
Chng ny phn tch c cu ca th trng lao ng trong cc DNNVV ngnh
ch bin Vit Nam da trn b s liu ngi s dng lao ng-ngi lao ng, cc kha
cnh khc nhau ca th trng lao ng bao gm cu thnh ca lc lng lao ng, cu
thnh ngh nghip, phng php tuyn dng, cng on, phc li x hi, gio dc v
o to ca lc lng lao ng bn cnh mc lng v cc nhn t quyt nh lng
cng c phn tch. Da trn c s liu t cc DNNVV cng nh s liu c thu thp
t ngi lao ng trong cc doanh nghip ny, chng ti c th c thm kin thc v
thc hin phn tch su sc hn.
7.1 C cu lc lng lao ng v tnh n nh
Bng 7.1 cho thy t l bnh qun lao ng thng xuyn (c ton thi gian v bn
thi gian) trong cc DNNVV Vit Nam tng ln t nm 2009 n nm 2011 trong
khi t l lao ng khng thng xuyn gim (mu cn bng). Thc trng ny c tt
c cc nhm quy m v a bn ca doanh nghip. Xu hng ny ngc vi xu hng
c quan st trong giai on 2007 v 2009. Hn na, s thay i t nm 2009 n nm
2011 khng phi xut pht t cc doanh nghip mi trong khu vc ch bin do cc kt
qu c da trn mu cn bng. iu ny th hin s phc hi sau cuc khng hong
kinh t ton cu v nhn chung lc quan hn. Thng thng khi nn kinh t n nh v
c nim tin vo tng lai, cc doanh nghip c xu hng tuyn dng nhiu lao ng
thng xuyn hn v t lao ng khng thng xuyn hn.
T l lao ng n trong lc lng lao ng gim nh so vi nm 2009, ch yu do
gim t l lao ng n trong cc doanh nghip nh v siu nh trong khi t l lao ng
n trong cc doanh nghip va gn nh khng i. T trng lao ng khng c tr
lng tng nh so vi nm 2009 trong tt c cc nhm vi mc tng cao nht ti khu
vc thnh th v ti min Nam (gn 2%). Ti cc khu vc nng thn, lao ng khng
c tr lng chim 50% v iu ny khng gy ngc nhin v nhiu lao ng trong
cc doanh nghip ny thng l thnh vin h gia nh. Cc kt qu trn thng nht
trong mu khng cn bng.
- 51 -
Bng 7.1 Cu thnh ca lc lng lao ng

(phn trm ca tng lc lng lao ng)
Tng s
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Thnh th
Nng thn
Min Nam
Min Bc
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009
2011
Thng
xuyn
91,3 95,7 92,2
96,4
88,7 93,7 92,3 95,3 91,4 96,0
91,2
95,4
93,5 97,7
89,8
94,3
Ton b
thi gian
87,7 89,1 87,3
88,2
87,9 90,7 91,8 93,1 89,7 91,6
86,4
87,4
90,7 93,2
85,7
86,4
Ph n
37,1 36,5 35,0
34,6
41,0 40,4 42,4 43,1 36,3 37,1
37,6
36,1
35,4 34,4
38,2
38,0
Khng
c tr
lng
37,3 38,4 53,5
53,7
5,2
4,7
0,2
0,1
19,8 21,6
49,5
50,0
29,3 31,1
42,7
43,2
S quan
st
1.958 1.958 1.315 1.358 513
480
130
120
800
Ghi ch: Bnh qun, phn trm tng lc lng lao ng, mu cn bng
800 1.158 1.158 782
782 1.176 1.176
Bng 7.2 trnh by cu thnh ca lc lng lao ng theo phn trm trong tng
lc lng lao ng. Lao ng sn xut vn tip tc chim phn ln tng lc lng lao
ng. T l lao ng sn xut tng cng vi quy m doanh nghip (trong c nm 2009
v 2011) v khu vc thnh th cao hn khu vc nng thn, cc doanh nghip c s st
gim t l lao ng sn xut trong hu ht tt c cc nhm quy m v a im (cc
doanh nghip quy m va c t l lao ng sn xut khng i). Ngc li, t l lao
ng qun l tng nh so vi nm 2009. Cc doanh nghip quy m va dng nh c
cu thnh lc lng khng i.
iu cn lu l 70% lao ng (khng c bo co) c tuyn dng trong cc
doanh nghip phi chnh thc l lao ng khng c tr lng trong nm 201 6. T l
lao ng khng c tr lng trong cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc ch l 25%. Quan
st ny ph hp vi cc pht hin ca Rand v Torm (2012a). Da trn cc cuc iu
tra nm 2007 v 2009, nghin cu ca cc tc gi trn cho thy, ngoi vic l mt li
ch i vi cc doanh nghip, tnh chnh thc ca doanh nghip cng em li li ch cho
ngi lao ng v mt ci tin iu kin hp ng.
6 Cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc c nh ngha l cc doanh nghip khng c m s doanh nghip hoc m s thu.
- 52 -
Bng 7.2 Cu thnh lc lng lao ng theo ngh

(phn trm tng lc lng lao ng)
Tng s
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Thnh th
Nng thn
Min Nam
Min Bc
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011
Qun l
29,5 27,1 38,0 35,4
11,3 11,0
5,8
5,9 21,5 19,8 35,0 32,2 22,3 26,2
30,3
31,7
Chuyn
mn
3,3
3,0
1,5
1,1
7,3
6,7
7,9
7,8
5,8
4,9
1,6
1,7
3,4
4,0
2,8
2,9
Vn
phng
1,7
1,5
0,6
0,5
3,7
3,3
5,1
4,2
3,1
2,7
0,7
0,6
2,0
2,2
1,1
1,3
Kinh
doanh
2,7
2,1
2,2
1,4
4,0
3,7
3,6
3,3
3,8
3,6
2,0
1,1
3,4
4,2
1,3
1,7
Dch v
0,7
0,7
0,3
0,4
1,3
1,2
1,8
2,2
1,0
1,0
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,9
0,8
0,5
Sn xut
61,9 65,3 57,3 61,1 71,8 73,6 75,3 75,8 64,6 67,4 60,1 63,8 67,8 62,2
63,6
61,7
Hc vic
0,2
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,1
0,2
0,5
0,4
0,5
0,8
0,2
0,5
0,2
0,1
0,5
S lng
doanh
nghip
1.950 1.954 1.315 1.358 510
480
125
116
796
796 1.154 1.158 780
0,3
779 1.170 1.175
Ghi ch: Phn trm trong tng lc lng lao ng, mu cn bng. 8 doanh nghip khng tr li cu hi trong nm
2009 v 4 doanh nghip khng tr li trong nm 2011.
iu tra ngi lao ng cho thy c s chuyn i ngh nghip v s bin ng

ny c trnh by trong Bng 7.3. Trong s nhng lao ng ang gi v tr qun l, xp
x 30% trc y l lao ng sn xut, 21,5% trc y khng lm vic v ch c 22%
trc y l qun l. iu ny cho thy v tr qun l khng cn kinh nghim c th.
Nhng pht hin ny cng ch ra kh nng pht trin trong tng lai ca cc ngh khc
nhau. Tuy nhin, dng nh lao ng sn xut v lao ng chuyn mn l nhng ngh
c xu hng vn gi nguyn dng cng vic cao nht khi h chuyn vic.
- 53 -
Bng 7.3 Ma trn chuyn dch ngh nghip
Cng vic trc y

Qun l
Cng vic hin ti

Qun l
Chuyn mn Vn phng Kinh doanh Dch v Sn xut
35
22,2
0,0
0,0
0,8
0,0
0,2
21
70
13,3
51,9
7,6
3,8
3,9
0,7
14
48
12
4,4
10,4
40,7
3,8
3,9
1,4
33
5,1
0,7
7,6
25,0
5,9
0,5
11
19
22
3,2
0,0
3,4
8,3
37,3
2,5
Sn xut
48
11
29
14
617
30,4
8,1
7,6
22,0
27,5
69,8
34
39
39
48
11
221
21,5
28,9
33,1
36,4
21,6
25,0
S quan st
158
135
118
132
51
884
%
Chuyn mn
%
Vn phng
%
Kinh doanh
%
Dch v
%
Khng lm vic
Ghi ch: Da trn iu tra ngi lao ng. Tng s quan st l 1.478.
V tnh n nh ca lc lng lao ng, Bng 7.4 cho thy s lng vic lm mi
c to ra trong nm 2011 l nh nhau gia tt c cc nhm doanh nghip theo quy m
v a bn. T l lao ng c tuyn dng trong nm 2011 chim xp x 7% tng lc
lng lao ng v cng mt t l tng t lao ng ngh vic. Trong s nhng lao ng
ngh vic c xp x 2/3 lao ng ngh t nguyn v ch c gn 4% b sa thi.
- 54 -
Bng 7.4 Tnh n nh ca lc lng lao ng
T l c
tuyn dng
T l ngh
vic
Trong
Ngh t
nguyn
B sa thi
V hu
m
Mt
Cc
nguyn
nhn khc
S doanh
nghip
Tng s
Siu
nh
Nh
Va
Thnh
th
Nng
thn
Chnh
thc
Phi
chnh
thc
6,8
5,7
9,0
10,3
7,3
6,4
8,2
3,3
8,7
5,3
7,0
6,0
9,4
9,1
7,8
6,5
8,3
4,0
8,4
6,0
66,8
4,1
0,3
1,5
0,1
66,8
2,9
0,0
1,2
0,0
67,5
5,4
0,3
1,4
0,0
64,8
3,8
1,5
2,8
0,3
60,8
4,2
0,6
1,7
0,1
73,6
4,0
0,1
1,3
0,0
67,1
3,5
0,4
1,7
0,1
63,3
10,2
0,0
0,0
0,0
69,5
1,7
0,4
1,7
0,1
63,8
6,8
0,3
1,4
0,0
27,2
29,1
25,4
26,7
32,6
21,0
27,3
26,6
26,8
27,7
2.427
1.674
612
141
1.038
1.389
1.718
709
1.404
1.023
Min
Nam
Min
Bc
Ghi ch: Mu khng cn bng. Phn trm tng lc lng lao ng.
Nhng kt qu ny thng nht trong tt c cc nhm doanh nghip theo quy m v

a bn. Cn lu rng trong nm 2011, cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc c t l lao
ng b sa thi cao hn so nhiu so vi cc doanh nghip chnh thc. Cc doanh nghip
ti min Bc cng c t l lao ng b sa thi cao hn tng i so vi cc doanh nghip
ti min Nam.
7.2 Gio dc, o to, iu kin lm vic v phng php tuyn dng
Cu thnh ca lc lng lao ng ph thuc vo la chn ca doanh nghip hn
l do thiu lao ng ph hp l mt vn cn xem xt. Bng 7.5 cho thy khong
17% tng s doanh nghip gp kh khn trong vic tuyn dng lao ng vi mc k
nng ph hp trong nm 2011 v 70% ca s doanh nghip ny cho bit nguyn nhn
chnh l thiu lao ng vi trnh k nng cn thit. So vi nm 2009, t l doanh
nghip gp kh khn trong vic tuyn dng gn nh khng i. Bng 7.5 cho thy kh
khn v tuyn dng tng ln ng k cng quy m doanh nghip v cao hn ti khu
vc thnh th. 42% cc doanh nghip quy m va v 11% cc doanh nghip siu nh
cho bit c kh khn trong tuyn dng lao ng c trnh k nng ph hp. Hn 70%
s doanh nghip nh, doanh nghip va v doanh nghip thnh th nhn thy thiu lao
- 55 -
ng c tay ngh l kh khn chnh trong tuyn dng. iu ny ph hp vi thc t l

cc doanh nghip ln hn v cc doanh nghip thnh th thng tuyn dng nhiu lao
ng chuyn mn hn, nh trnh by trong Bng 7.2. Cc kt qu ch ra rng cc mc
k nng ca ngi lao ng khng ph hp vi nhu cu ca doanh nghip. 16,6% tng
s doanh nghip gp kh khn trong tuyn dng lao ng do mc lng a ra khng
v 10% doanh nghip cho bit cc iu kin lm vic khng hp dn l kh khn
chnh. So vi nm 2009, tnh hnh gn nh khng i. Do t l lao ng c o to tt
tng i cao, nh c trnh by trong Bng 7.10, dng nh nhng kh khn trong
tuyn dng ny l do thiu thng tin th trng lao ng hn l thiu lao ng c tay
ngh. iu ny gi rng vic tng cng h thng thng tin s l li ch cho c ngi
lao ng v cc doanh nghip v c th gip gn kt k nng ca ngi lao ng v yu
cu ca ngnh ngh.
Bng 7.5 Nhng kh khn trong tuyn dng
Tng
s
Siu
nh
Nh
Va
Thnh
th
Nng
thn
17,0
11,2
27,3
41,1
23,4
12,2
Khng tuyn dng
43,2
53,6
22,5
9,2
34,4
49,7
Thiu lao ng c tay ngh
69,9
66,3
72,5
74,1
75,7
61,5
Khng a ra mc lng
16,5
16,0
19,2
10,3
14,8
61,5
iu kin lm vic khng hp dn
10,4
12,8
7,2
12,1
7,8
61,5
Khc
3,2
4,8
1,2
3,4
1,6
61,5
2.426
1.673
612
141
1.038
1.388
(412)
(187)
(167)
(48)
(243)
(169)
Kh khn trong tuyn dng lao ng c

k nng yu cu
Nguyn nhn ca kh khn trong tuyn

dng
S lng doanh nghip
S lng doanh nghip c kh khn tuyn dng trong ngoc n. iu tra nm 2011.
Bng 7.6 cho thy phng php tuyn dng ph bin nht l thng qua lin h phi
chnh thc, chim hn 60% tng cc phng php tuyn dng7. T l ny gi nguyn
tt c cc nhm doanh nghip theo quy m v a bn (tr cc doanh nghip siu nh, t
l l 58%). c bit cc doanh nghip nh s dng gii thiu ca bn b l phng php
7 Do bn b/ngi thn hoc cc lao ng khc gii thiu v lin h c nhn c hiu l phng php tuyn dng
phi chnh thc.
- 56 -
tuyn dng chnh, trong 75% lao ng tuyn dng c tuyn dng phi chnh thc.
Cc kt qu ny thng nht vi pht hin t nm 2009 (khng c bo co). C cc
doanh nghip nng thn v thnh th s dng phng php tuyn dng phi chnh thc
vi t l cao v cc doanh nghip thnh th tuyn dng hn 65% lao ng bng phng
php phi chnh thc. Cn lu l gn mt phn ba cc doanh nghip nng thn v siu
nh bo co khng p dng. iu ny c th lm lch cc kt qu v gn nh lao ng
c tuyn dng trong cc doanh nghip ny l thnh vin h gia nh v sau , theo
nh ngha, c tuyn dng phi chnh thc. Phng php tuyn dng c th c cc
ngha khc nhau v mt a ra mc lng. Larsen, Rand v Torm, da trn iu tra nm
2007, cho thy lao ng c tuyn dng bng lin h c nhn hoc cc hnh thc khc
ca phng php tuyn dng phi chnh thc nhn c tin lng cao ng k.
Bng 7.6 Phng php tuyn dng
Phng php tuyn dng

Tng s
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Thnh th Nng thn
Qung co trn bo
5,5
1,9
10,1
29,1
9,8
2,3
Trao i lao ng
2,6
2,2
3,9
2,1
2,9
2,4
Do bn b/ngi thn hoc lao

ng khc gii thiu
39,1
33,6
54,2
37,6
42,1
36,8
Do chnh quyn a phng gii

thiu/phn b
1,3
1,0
1,8
2,8
2,0
0,7
Lin h c nhn
23,0
24,8
20,8
12,1
26,3
20,6
Thng qua trung tm dch v

vic lm
1,5
0,5
2,9
7,1
2,9
0,5
Khc
2,0
1,4
3,1
5,0
1,6
2,3
Khng p dng
25,0
34,7
3,1
4,3
12,3
34,4
S lng doanh nghip
2.427
1.674
612
141
1.038
1.389
Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2011
Trong Bng 7.7 miu t cc phng php tuyn dng trong cc ngnh. Cc doanh
nghip sn xut thc phm v ung hoc g c xu hng t s dng phng php
tuyn dng phi chnh thc hn so vi cc ngnh khc. Tuy nhin, ngnh thc phm v
ung v ngnh g c t l kh cao s doanh nghip tr li khng p dng.
i khi ch s hu/ngi qun l gim st ngi lao ng ca mnh m
bo ngi lao ng lm vic chm ch. Bng 7.8 cho thy khong 17% tng s doanh
nghip da trn mt s hnh thc gim st, hoc thng qua c cng hoc ngi lao
- 57 -
ng gim st ln nhau. Gn 25% tng s doanh nghip khuyn khch ngi lao ng
lm vic chm ch thng qua cc h thng tr thm lng v 12% s doanh nghip a
ra ph cp. Dng nh khng c s khc bit ng k gia qun l/ch s hu nam gii
hay n gii v mt gim st ti ni lm vic.
Bng 7.7 Cc phng php tuyn dng theo ngnh
Cao su
Qung co trn bo
2,7
1,6
7,9
4,3
4,9
4,1
Trao i lao ng
1,9
1,2
3,5
2,6
2,3
3,1
Do bn b/ngi thn hoc lao

ng khc gii thiu
29,4
38,6
50,0
47,4
42,6
43,8
Do chnh quyn a phng gii

thiu/phn b
0,9
0,4
2,6
1,7
1,6
1,5
Lin h c nhn
18,2
25,3
23,7
30,2
28,0
26,8
Thng qua trung tm dch v vic

lm
0,7
0,4
3,5
2,6
1,9
Khc
1,8
2,4
5,3
3,4
1,6
1,0
Khng p dng
44,4
30,1
3,5
7,8
17,1
19,6
S lng doanh nghip
737
249
114
116
432
194
Khong
Kim
phi kim loi c
Ni tht,
trang
sc,v.v...
Thc phm
v ung
Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2011
Trong Bng 7.5 phn ln cc doanh nghip cho thy c vn vi vic tm lao
ng c k nng, iu ny c th dn n kt qu s c nhiu kha o to hn ti
ni lm vic. Tuy nhin, Bng 7.9 cho thy ch c 8,4% tng s doanh nghip c o
to lao ng mi v ch c 6,8% tng s doanh nghip c o to lao ng hin c. T
l cc doanh nghip c o to lao ng tng ln theo quy m doanh nghip. iu ny
khng ngc nhin v cc doanh nghip va cho thy nhng kh khn ln nht trong
tuyn dng lao ng c tay ngh.
- 58 -
Bng 7.8 Cc bin php m bo lao ng lm vic chm ch

Bn c da vo nhng bin php khc nhau m bo nhn vin
ca bn lm vic chm ch
Tng Siu
Thnh Nng Min Min
s
nh Nh Va th
thn Nam Bc Nam
Gim st qua c cng
12,6
10,3 15,9 20,0
14,0
11,3
10,4
14,4
13,0
11,8
Ngi lao ng t gim

st ln nhau
4,5
4,7
2,9
4,6
4,5
4,1
4,9
4,1
5,3
Khuyn khch thng qua

h thng tr thm lng
24,7
22,7 27,9 30,0
26,6
22,9
29,4
20,8
24,1
25,6
Phc li x hi (ph
cp)
12,1
11,4 11,9 19,3
14,1
10,3
18,1
7,1
11,0
14,0
Trau di s tin tng/

trung thnh/ngha v
21,2
24,6 14,9 14,3
17,2
24,7
14,5
26,7
22,5
18,8
Qun l bng cht lng

sn xut
18,8
19,4 19,9 7,9
18,2
19,3
14,9
22,0
18,4
19,5
Qun l thi gian
5,4
5,8
4,6
5,7
4,5
6,3
7,5
3,7
6,3
4,0
Da sa thi
0,1
0,1
0,0
0,0
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,0
0,3
Khc
0,6
0,8
0,3
0,0
0,6
0,6
1,0
0,3
0,5
0,8
2.115 1.372 603 140
999
1.116
954
S lng doanh nghip
4,5
1.161 1.335
780
Chi ch: iu tra nm 2011. 312 doanh nghip khng tr li v b loi.
T l doanh nghip c o to lao ng gim nh t 8,5% nm 2009 xung cn

gn 7% nm 2011. Tuy nhin, c s tng ln ng k v t l cc doanh nghip va c
o to lao ng mi t 28% trong nm 2009 ln 35% trong nm 2011. T l lao ng
nh c o to tng ln t 9,5% trong nm 200`9 ln n gn 15% trong nm 2011.
Ngc li, c s st gim v t l doanh nghip siu nh c o to lao ng. S tng
ln ca t l doanh nghip nh v va c o to lao ng mi c th l do nhu cu i
vi lao ng c k nng tt hn hoc do doanh nghip t b hn ch v ngun lc hn
do s phc hi sau khng hong kinh t ton cu. Cc doanh nghip ti khu vc thnh
th c xu hng o to lao ng mi cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip nng thn8.
8 Kt qu da trn mu khng cn bng.
- 59 -
Bng 7.9 o lo lc lng lao ng

Ni tht,
trang
Thc
Khong Kim loi sc,
Thnh Nng phm v
v.v
th
thn ung G Cao su phi kim ng
Tng
s
Siu
nh
Nh
Va
o to lao
ng mi
8,4
2,3
14,9
35,5
11,0
5,8
5,3
6,5
10,6
4,6
5,2
7,7
o to lao
ng hin c
6,8
3,1
12,4
20,6
10,0
4,1
2,9
6,5
6,1
7,9
4,7
5,0
2.029 1.285 603
141
1.033
996
584
205
114
114
402
180
S lao ng
Ghi ch: Tt c cc doanh nghip khng tr li u b loi. iu tra nm 2011.
Bng 7.9 cng ch ra rng t l doanh nghip c o to lao ng hin c tng 3%

trong nm 2009 ln gn 7% nm 2011. Cc doanh nghip thng c xu hng o to
lao ng mi hn so vi o to lao ng hin c. iu ny c th do thc t l nhng
lao ng lm cng ngh trong mt thi gian c kinh nghim v khng cn phi
c o to thc hin cc yu cu ca cng vic. Cc pht hin c da trn mu
khng cn bng nhng thng nht vi mu cn bng. Cui cng, dng nh mt t l
ln cc doanh nghip sn xut cao su v cc doanh nghip sn xut ni tht c o to
lao ng mi.
V trnh hc vn ca lc lng lao ng, Bng 7.10 cho thy gn 19% lao ng
c iu tra trong m-un ngi lao ng c trnh i hc v ng ch l t l
ny cao i vi n gii. V mu bao gm lao ng c tuyn dng trong cc DNNVV
t nhn nn kt qu c th b lch. Dng nh lao ng nam gii c trnh cao c
i din cha y trong mu v h c tuyn dng trong cc c quan khc (doanh
nghip nh nc hoc cc doanh nghip khc). Ngc li lao ng n c trnh cao
c th b chn mu nhiu hn thc t v dng nh h b loi khi cc v tr cao trong
cc cng ty nh nc v do , tm vic lm ti cc doanh nghip t nhn. V vy, cn
lu iu ny khi a ra bt c kt lun no v trnh hc vn ca ngi lao ng.
- 60 -
Bng 7.10 Trnh hc vn

Trnh hc vn cao nht
Nam
Tng s
Khng (%)
0,6
0,8
0,7
11
Tiu hc (%)
6,7
4,1
5,1
41
35
76
Trung hc c s (%)
18,5
22,2
20,6
114
191
305
Trung hc ph thng (%)
30,8
36,0
33,8
190
310
500
Bng k thut/Lao ng c bn (%)
2,1
2,4
2,3
13
21
34
Lao ng k thut khng c bng cp (%)
7,5
13,0
10,7
46
112
158
Lao ng k thut/chuyn mn th cp (%)
8,1
7,9
8,0
50
68
118
Cao ng/i hc/sau i hc (%)
25,6
13,7
18,7
158
118
276
S quan st
616
862
1.478
Ghi ch: S quan st c in m. iu tra ngi lao ng
7.3 Cng on
Theo quy nh ca php lut, cc doanh nghip c t 10 lao ng tr ln phi hnh
thnh t chc cng on c s. Do vy phn ny tp trung phn tch cc doanh nghip
nh hoc va (v c trn 10 lao ng). Tt c cc doanh nghip c t hn 10 lao ng
b loi khi mu. Da trn mu khng cn bng, gn 26% tng s cc doanh nghip c
t chc cng on c s. T l doanh nghip c t chc cng on c s bin ng ln
theo quy m doanh nghip, t 16% i vi cc doanh nghip nh n 67% i vi cc
doanh nghip va. T l doanh nghip va c t chc cng on c s tng nh so vi
nm 2009, trong khi t l doanh nghip nng thn c t chc cng on c s gim.
Dng nh cc doanh nghip do ch s hu/qun l nam ng u c xu hng t c
t chc cng on c s hn so vi cc doanh nghip c ch s hu n. T l doanh
nghip c nam gii ng u c t chc cng on c s gim so vi nm 2009. Trong
- 61 -
tt c cc nhm, t l doanh nghip c cng on c s gn nh khng i gia nm

2009 v 2011. Bng 7.11 cng cho thy t chc cng on c s ph bin hn ti khu
vc thnh th so vi khu vc nng thn. Cui cng, dng nh cc doanh nghip ti
min Nam c xu hng c t chc cng on c s cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip
ti min Bc.
Bng 7.11 T l doanh nghip c Cng on c s v thnh vin
Mu khng cn bng
Mu cn bng
T l doanh nghip T l lao ng T l doanh nghip
T l lao ng
2009
2011
2009
2011
2009
2011
2009
2011
Tng s
25,8
25,8
81,0
77,3
27,7
26,3
81,2
77,9
Nh
16,6
16,4
83,4
76,5
18,4
17,2
83,7
77,3
Va
63,5
66,7
78,2
76,7
64,6
62,5
77,9
76,7
Thnh th
31,3
33,6
81,9
75,4
33,3
34,5
82,2
76,0
Nng thn
16,2
13,2
77,9
84,9
18,1
13,3
77,8
85,4
Min Nam
32,3
34,1
74,0
72,7
36,4
34,7
74,3
73,4
Min Bc
20,3
18,9
90,5
84,3
20,8
19,8
90,7
83,9
Ch s hu nam
23,3
21,2
79,7
82,8
25,4
22,0
78,4
85,0
Ch s hu n
29,9
31,9
81,9
73,3
31,8
31,8
81,9
74,3
S quan st
811
751
211
202
642
598
180
164
Ghi ch: Kt qu da trn mu c chn. Tt c cc doanh nghip siu nh b loi khi mu.
Khi c cng on, s tham gia ca lc lng lao ng nhn chung cao vi gn
khong 77% s lao ng l thnh vin trong nm 2011. Cn lu rng t l bnh qun
lao ng l thnh vin ca cng on cao hn ti cc doanh nghip ti min Bc so vi
cc doanh nghip ti min Nam. T nm 2009 n nm 2011 c s st gim t l bnh
qun lao ng tham gia cng on. S st gim ny c quan st thy tt c cc
nhm tr cc doanh nghip nng thn v cc doanh nghip c ch s hu nam. Kh
ngc nhin l t l ngi lao ng l thnh vin ca cng on a phng gim v y
l mt phng thc c iu kin lm vic tt hn, lng cao hn v phc li x hi
c m bo. S st gim lao ng tr thnh thnh vin cng on c th do nhiu
nguyn nhn khc nhau bao gm thiu nhn thc v li ch khi l thnh vin cng on,
xu hng t do hoc gi nh v s thiu hiu qu ca cng on9.
9 70% doanh nghip c hip c lao ng tp th nm 2011. Tuy nhin, ch c 241 doanh nghip tr li cu hi.
- 62 -
Hn 45% lao ng trong mu ngi lao ng tr li l li ch quan trng nht khi

l thnh vin cng on l m bo phc li x hi. 13,4% cho bit m bo vic lm l
li ch chnh v 12,6% cho bit an ton ti ni lm vic l li ch quan trng nht (khng
bo co). V hn 45% lao ng trong mu ngi lao ng tr li li ch quan trng nht
khi l thnh vin cng on l m bo phc li x hi, dng nh l thnh vin cng
on c tng quan thun vi vic nhn c phc li x hi.
Bng 7.12 Lao ng c phc li x hi
c lng Probit
(1)
Thnh vin cng on (C=1)
0,482***
Gii tnh ngi lao ng (Nam gii=1)
0,031
Tui ngi lao ng
-0,004
Tui bnh phng/100
0,002
Ngi qun l
0,057
Lao ng chuyn mn
0,237***
Kinh doanh
0,123***
Dch v/vn phng
0,226***
Trung hc c s v cao hn (C=1)
0,164***
Lao ng k thut (C=1)
0,069*
c tuyn dng bng phng php phi chnh thc -0,147***
M s thu (C=1)
Gii tnh ca ch s hu (Nam gii=1)
Quy m doanh nghip (log)
T nhn/1 thnh vin
Hp tc x
Cng ty TNHH
Cng ty c phn
T l lao ng chuyn mn trn tng lao ng
T l lc lng lao ng l n
Ch s hu c trnh cao
S quan st
1.368
Bin gi ngnh
Khng
Bin gi tnh
Khng
(2)
(25,11) 0,375***
(1,00)
0,005
(-0,46)
-0,011
(0,15)
0,013
(1,18)
-0,029
(5,65)
0,059
(2,61)
0,042
(5,73)
0,091*
(4,75)
0,060
(1,75)
-0,082*
(-4,82) -0,145***
0,034
-0,024
0,109***
0,121**
0,264***
0,199***
0,235***
0,585**
-0,242***
0,123*
1.368
(10,57)
(0,13)
(-1,15)
(1,03)
(-0,52)
(0,98)
(0,73)
(1,74)
(1,55)
(-1,74)
(-4,42)
(0,64)
(-0,71)
(4,90)
(2,37)
(4,12)
(4,33)
(4,75)
(2,27)
(-2,94)
(1,94)
Ghi ch: Bin ph thuc: Bin ph thuc: Ngi lao ng c phc li x hi. c lng Probit, tc ng bin c
bo co. i vi gio dc, ngh nghip v tnh trng php l, cc nhm tham chiu tng ng l trnh trung hc c
s v thp hn, lao ng sn xut v h gia nh. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. T-statistics
da trn sai s chun gp c bo co trong ngoc n.
- 63 -
Sau Torm (2011) mt m hnh Probit n gin c c tnh minh ha mi tng

quan gia phc li x hi v l thnh vin cng on v Bng 7.12 trnh by cc kt qu
ny. Dng nh l thnh vin cng on c ngha thng k ng k v c tng quan
thun vi vic nhn c phc li x hi v kt qu thng nht c khi c nh ngi lao
ng v doanh nghip/c im ngi lao ng (ct 1 v 2). Trong ct (1) ch c cc
c im ngi lao ng. Ngi lao ng c trnh cao, ngi lao ng chuyn mn,
ngi lao ng lm kinh doanh v dch v thng nhn c li ch tng i vi vi
ngi lao ng sn xut. Tuy nhin, ngi lao ng trnh cao thng l thnh vin
cng on. iu ny c th c nh hng ti kt qu. Bn cnh dng nh lao ng
c tuyn dng qua lin h cc nhn thng t nhn c phc li x hi hn.
Trong ct 2, c mt s bin c th ca doanh nghip. iu ny lm thay i mt s
kt qu c trnh by trn. Khi c nh cc c im ca doanh nghip, cc nhm
ngh nghip tr nn khng quan trng v tm quan trng ca trnh gio dc gim.
Nu c cc c tnh ca doanh nghip th iu ny cho thy lao ng ti cc doanh
nghip ln hn thng c li ch hn trong khi c tuyn dng thng qua lin h phi
chnh thc vn c tng quan ngc vi phc li x hi. Tuy nhin, ch s hu nam c
tng quan ngc v khng c ngha thng k ln i vi phc li x hi. iu ny
ph hp vi cc pht hin trong Hnh 7.4 (s c cp sau). Cui cng, cc c nhn
lm vic ti cc doanh nghip ln hn, cng ty hp danh HTX, cc cng ty c phn,
cng ty t nhn, cng ty TNHH, v trong cc doanh nghip c t l lao ng chuyn
mn cao hn u c xc sut nhn c phc li x hi cao hn.
Cc kt qu trong Bng 7.12 so snh thnh vin cng on trong cc doanh nghip
vi cng on cp a phng c cc thnh vin phi cng on trong c doanh nghip
c cng on v doanh nghip khng c cng on. Do vy, cc kt qu ny nn c
hiu mt cch thn trng v cc thnh vin phi cng on trong cc doanh nghip phi
cng on khng i mt vi la chn tr thnh thnh vin cng on. Tuy nhin, cc
kt qu thng nht vi nhng pht hin ca Torm (2011). Torm (2011), da trn s liu
mu ngi s dng lao ng-ngi lao ng t nm 2007 v 2009 nhn thy rng thnh
vin cng on Vit Nam c lin h vi vic tng lng. Bn cnh , trong ti liu ca
mnh, Torm cho thy trong cc doanh nghip c cng on, ngi lao ng l thnh
vin cng on thng nhn c phc li x hi hn so vi nhng lao ng khng l
thnh vin cng on.
Quay tr li Bng 7.11, cc kt qu da trn mu cn bng cho thy t l doanh
nghip c cng on cp a phng gim t nm 2009 n nm 2011. Kt qu t mu
- 64 -
cn bng ch ra rng mt s doanh nghip chuyn t c cng on cp a phng

trong nm 2009 sang khng c cng on cp a phng trong nm 2011. Cc pht
hin cng ch ra rng s doanh nghip ri b cng on a phng nhiu hn s doanh
nghip gia nhp cng on a phng. Bng 7.13 cho thy 11,7% s doanh nghip
trong mu cn bng chuyn t c cng on cp a phng trong nm 2009 sang
khng c cng on a phng trong nm 2011. Ngc li, ch c 9,4% s doanh
nghip chuyn t khng c cng on a phng trong nm 2009 sang c cng
on a phng trong nm 2011. Thc trng ny din ra tt c cc nhm a bn ca
doanh nghip. Tuy nhin cc doanh nghip va c xu hng c t chc cng on. y
l mt mi quan ngi v cng on a phng c vai tr quan trng v mt m bo
phc li x hi, m bo vic lm v an ton cho ngi lao ng.
Bng 7.13 Cc doanh nghip c s chuyn dch (%)
Tng s
Nh
Va
Thnh th
Nng
thn
Min
Nam
Min Bc
Cc doanh nghip
khng c cng on 11,7
11,2
16,0
13,2
9,2
15,1
9,2
Cc doanh nghip c
cng on
9,4
6,6
22,0
11,7
5,4
11,5
7,8
S lng doanh
nghip
393
118
326
185
326
185
511
Chi ch: Mu cn bng. Do cc doanh nghip siu nh b loi nn s lng quan st l 1.240 doanh nghip.
C s khc bit ng k gia iu tra nm 2009 v 2011 v vic ai l ch tch cng

on. Hnh 7.1 cho thy khong 33,5% ch tch cng on l cc nh qun l. T l ny
gim xung so vi t l 45% trong nm 2009. Ngc li, khong 44% ch tch cng
on l ngi lao ng cp cao v t l ny nm 2009 l 32%. S thay i ny cho thy
s pht trin tch cc theo hng cng on ng vai tr quan trng trong vic bo v
quyn li ca ngi lao ng v m bo phc li x hi, m bo vic lm v s an
ton ti ni lm vic. Nhng pht hin ny cng gy ngc nhin hn khi t l ngi lao
ng l thnh vin cng on gim k t nm 2009.
- 65 -
Hnh 7.1 Ch tch cng on
Ch doanh nghip
C quan h vi ch doanh nghip
Lao ng qun l (khng phi ch DN)
Trng phng nhn s
Lao ng c kinh nghim
Khc
7.4 Xy dng mc lng, phc li x hi v hp ng

V mc lng, lng danh ngha bnh qun hng thng ca ngi lao ng c
iu tra trong mu ngi lao ng l 2.800.000 ng, mc lng bnh qun ca lao
ng nam l 2.900.000 ng v mc lng bnh qun ca lao ng n l 2.700.00
ng10. Chnh lch mc lng xy ra tt c cc loi ngh nh c trnh by trong
Hnh 7.2 v s chnh lch mc lng c bit cao trong s nhng ngi lao ng c
chuyn mn. T Hnh 7.2 cho thy dng nh c mc lng cao hn cho tt c cc
nhm ngh nghip so vi cng nhn sn xut.
Hnh 7.2 Lng bnh qun hng thng (tnh theo 1.000 VND)
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Tng s
N
Nam
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Qun l
Chuyn
mn KT
Vn
phng
Kinh
doanh
Dch v
Sn xut
Ghi ch: Cc quan st cao hn mc ca 99% cn li b loi tnh n yu t ngoi vi. S liu t m-un ngi lao ng.
10 Cc quan st cao hn mc ca 99% cn li b loi tnh n yu t ngoi vi.
- 66 -
Hnh 7.3 trnh by lng thc t bnh qun hng thng trong nm 2009 v 2011
c chia theo nhm ngh nghip. Lng thc t bnh qun hng thng di 1.685.000
ng trong nm 2011 v trn 1.427.000 ng trong nm 2009. Do vy, lng thc t
tng gn 18% trong giai on 2 nm nghin cu. iu ny c ngha l lng thc
t bnh qun tng khong gn 8% mi nm t nm 2009 n nm 2011. Mc tng
lng c quan st trn c th so snh vi Trung Quc, quc gia c nhiu c tnh
tng t nh Vit Nam v l quc gia c mc lng trung bnh nm ca khu vc t
nhn tng 6,6% trong nm 2009 (ILO, 2010). Cui cng, cc pht hin trong Hnh 7.3
cho thy mc tng lng dng nh xy ra tt c cc nhm ngh khc nhau.
Hnh 7.3 Lng thc t bnh qun hng thng (tnh theo 1.000 VND)
Qun l
Chuyn
mn KT
Vn
phng
Kinh
doanh
Dch v
Sn xut
Ghi ch: Lng thc t hng thng c gim pht s dng CPI ca Ngn hng Th gii (2005=100).
Hi quy lng n gin da trn c ngi lao ng v cc c im ca doanh

nghip vi tt c cc yu t xc nh lng truyn thng c trnh by trong Bng
7.14. Bng ny cho thy mc lng ca lao ng trong cc nhm ngh nghip u cao
hn ng k so vi cng nhn sn xut v khng nh nhng pht hin t Hnh 7.2. Bn
cnh , nhng pht hin ny ph hp vi nhng pht hin ca Larsen, Rand v Torm
(2011). Cc ch s nh ph thng trung hc v cao hn v cng nhn k thut kh ln
mc 1%. V trnh trung hc c s v thp hn l nhm tham chiu, ch s dng v
cc bin gio dc cho thy trnh c tng quan thun vi mc lng. iu ny ph
hp vi nhng pht hin ca Hering v Poncet (2010). Da trn s liu t 56 thnh ph
ca Trung Quc, s liu cho thy s nm i hc c tng quan thun vi mc lng
trong khi bnh phng tui c tng quan ngc vi mc lng. Bng 7.14 cng cho
- 67 -
thy o to khi ang lm vic c tng quan thun vi mc lng. Tuy nhin iu ny
c th do cc doanh nghip c thc hin o to khi ngi lao ng ang lm vic cng
c xu hng tr lng cao hn. Cui cng, cc kt qu khng nh c khong cch ln
v lng theo gii tnh v khng nh nhng pht hin trong Hnh 7.2. Hn na, khong
cch v lng theo gii l ph bin c bit ti cc nc ang pht trin v pht hin
ny tng ng vi cc nghin cu khc nhau (Liu, 2004; Hering v Poncet, 2010; Vu,
2012). Kt qu ny c th phn nh s phn bit i x i vi ph n ti Vit Nam.
Ct 2 bao gm mt s bin doanh nghip c th. iu ny khng lm thay i kt
qu c bn c cp trn, mc d ln ca cc ch s gim i vi hu ht tt
c cc bin. Quy m doanh nghip c tng quan thun v cht ch vi lng, iu ny
ph hp vi pht hin chung rng thu nhp dng nh c tng quan thun vi quy m
doanh nghip (Soderbom v cng s, 2005). Ch rng ch s hu l nam gii c mi
quan h cht ch, thun chiu v c ngha thng k ln vi mc lng. Nguyn nhn
c th do ch s hu nam b p s thiu ht cc phc li x hi bng vic tr lng cao
hn. Cc kt qu trong Bng 7.12 cho thy ch s hu nam c tng quan ngc chiu
vi cc phc li x hi nhng mc tng quan ny khng ln. Bn cnh , dng nh
t l n trong lc lng lao ng c tng quan ngc chiu vi mc lng. Tng t,
tnh chnh thc ca doanh nghip c tng quan ngc vi mc lng. iu ny kh
ngc nhin nhng c th xy ra do nhng ngi lao ng vi thu nhp kh cao ti khu
vc phi chnh thc s t chn mnh cho khu vc . Tuy nhin, dng nh kh ngc
nhin v Rand v Torm (2012b), da trn s liu iu tra doanh nghip t nm 2009
cho thy lng bnh qun trong cc doanh nghip chnh thc cao hn so vi cc doanh
nghip phi chnh thc. Nhng nghin cu ca Rand v Torm (2012b) c thc hin
ch da trn s liu cp doanh nghip. Cui cng, trong hi quy cng c mt ch tiu
th hin cc doanh nghip xut khu. Trc y, k vng rng cc doanh nghip xut
khu c xu hng tr lng cao hn cho ngi lao ng (Bernard v cng s, 1995)
nhng cc kt qu trong Bng 7.14 cho thy iu ny khng c pht hin trong
nghin cu ny. Pht hin ny ph hp vi cc pht hin ca Vu (2012). Da trn s
liu t cc DNNVV Vit Nam, Vu (2012) thy rng mc lng cao hn ca cc cng
ty xut khu bin mt khi c tnh ca ngi lao ng v ca doanh nghip c a
vo hm hi quy.
- 68 -
Bng 7.14 Cc yu t quyt nh lng

Bin ph thuc: ln(lng thc t)
(1)
(2)
Gii tnh ngi lao ng (nam=1)
0,110***
(4,66)
0,061**
(2,54)
Tui ngi lao ng
0,030**
(2,46)
0,023**
(2,33)
Bnh phng tui/100
-0,035**
(-2,29) -0,027**
(-2,13)
S nm lm vic ca ngi lao ng ti doanh

nghip
0,006
(1,08)
(0,47)
0,003
Bnh phng s nm lm vic ti doanh nghip/100 -0,027
(-1,12) -0,019
(-0,83)
Qun l
0,369***
(8,58)
0,317***
(7,34)
Chuyn mn
0,198***
(5,29)
0,147***
(3,91)
Kinh doanh
0,079**
(2,24)
0,053*
(1,66)
Dch v/vn phng
0,125***
(3,74)
0,089***
(2,78)
Trung hc ph thng v cao hn (c=1)
0,180***
(4,60)
0,099**
(2,57)
Cng nhn k thut (c=1)
0,186***
(4,14)
0,102**
(2,22)
o to khi ang lm vic (c=1)
0,115***
(5,01)
0,058***
(2,73)
c tuyn dng bng phng php phi chnh thc

(c=1)
0,002
(0,06)
0,034
(1,33)
M s thu (c=1)
-0,101**
(-1,98)
Gii tnh ca ch s hu (nam=1)
0,092***
(3,38)
0,047***
(3,34)
T l ngi lm chuyn mn trong tng lc lng

lao ng
0,096
(0,48)
T l n gii trong tng lc lng lao ng
-0,202*** (-3,51)
Xut khu
-0,048
(-1,41)
R-squared
0,139
0,251
S quan st
1.119
1.119
Bin gi ngnh
Khng
Bin gi c cu php l
Khng
Bin gi tnh
Khng
Ghi ch: Bin ph thuc: Log lng thc t. Lng c gim pht s dng CPI ca Ngn hng Th gii (2005=100).
c tnh da trn lng hng thng. Ch c 1.121 ngi lao ng bo co lng theo n v lng theo thi gian.
c tnh OLS. i vi trnh hc vn v ngh nghip, cc nhm tham chiu tng ng l trung hc c s v thp
hn v cng nhn sn xut. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. Cc quan st cao hn mc ca
99% cn li b loi. t-statistics da trn sai s chun gp c bo co trong ngoc n.
- 69 -
V mt c s xc nh mc lng, Bng 7.15 cho thy phng thc ph bin nht

l xc nh mc lng thng qua m phn c nhn. Kh nng chi tr ca doanh nghip
v mc lng ti cc doanh nghip ngoi quc doanh khc cng l cc nhn t quan
trng xc nh mc lng ca doanh nghip. c bit, cc doanh nghip min Bc
xc nh mc lng da trn mc lng ti cc doanh nghip ngoi quc doanh khc.
So vi nm 2009, s lng doanh nghip xc nh mc lng thng qua m phn c
nhn gim k (t 52% trong nm 2009 xung cn 45% trong nm 2011) trong khi c
nhiu doanh nghip hn xc nh mc lng theo kh nng chi tr ca doanh nghip
hoc mc lng trong cc doanh nghip phi quc doanh khc. iu ny din ra tt c
doanh nghip theo nhm quy m v a bn. Bn cnh , Bng 7.16 cng cho thy mt
s bin ng trong cc nhn t chnh xc nh lng gia cc ngnh.
Bng 7.15 Cc nhn t chnh xc nh mc lng
Tng
s
Siu
nh
Nh
Thnh Nng
Va
th
thn
Min
Nam
Min
Bc
Mc lng ti cc doanh nghip

a phng ngoi quc doanh
khc
18,2
17,6
18,0
24,1
13,5
23,1
11,4
24,4
Mc lng ti cc doanh nghip

quc doanh a phng
2,2
1,7
3,1
2,8
2,9
1,5
1,6
2,9
Do c quan c thm quyn xy

dng
4,6
1,9
7,4
13,5
7,0
2,1
7,1
2,2
Mc lng i vi vic lm
trong ngnh nng nghip
2,0
2,6
1,0
1,4
0,6
3,3
1,8
2,1
m phn c nhn
44,8
48,3
42,0
29,1
42,4
47,3
43,7
45,8
Kh nng chi tr ca doanh

nghip
27,2
26,8
27,5
29,1
32,6
21,6
33,3
21,6
Khc
1,0
1,1
1,0
0,0
0,9
1,1
1,1
0,9
610
141
956
926
900
982
S lng doanh nghip
1.882 1.131
Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2011.
- 70 -
Bng 7.16 Cc nhn t chnh xc nh lng theo ngnh

Ni
tht,
Khong
Kim
trang
Cao su phi kim loi c sc,
Thc
phm v
ung
17,3
17,9
14,5
28,6
17,8
20,4
doanh a phng
1,7
1,6
1,8
1,9
1,9
2,4
Do c quan c thm quyn xy dng
4,1
2,2
10,0
4,8
4,0
ngnh nng nghip
2,6
4,3
2,9
0,8
3,0
m phn c nhn
43,6
56,5
40,9
40,0
43,9
52,7
Kh nng chi tr ca doanh nghip
29,7
16,8
30,9
20,0
31,1
20,4
Khc
1,0
0,5
1,8
1,9
0,5
1,2
S lng doanh nghip
417
184
110
110
376
167
Mc lng ti cc doanh nghip a

phng ngoi quc doanh khc
Mc lng ti cc doanh nghip quc
Mc lng i vi vic lm trong
i vi phc li x hi, li ch ph bin nht l ngh thai sn khng c tr lng

vi hn 50% s doanh nghip p ng li ch ny. Li ch ph bin th hai l bi thng
tai nn trc tip hoc m do cng vic, nh trnh by trong Hnh 7.17. So vi nm 2009,
t l doanh nghip c ng bo him x hi v bo him y t tng ln. T l doanh
nghip chi tr lng ngh m gim t 30% trong nm 2009 xung cn 28% trong nm
2011. Ngoi ngh m, tt c cc hnh thc phc li x hi u tng ln t nm 2009 v
do vy iu kin lm vic dng nh c ci tin theo thi gian. Bng 7.17 cho thy
gn 17% tng tt c cc doanh nghip c ng bo him tht nghip. Cui cng, Bng
7.16 cho thy tt c cc doanh nghip min Nam c xu hng cung cp cc loi phc
li x hi cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip ti min Bc. iu ny tng ng vi cc
quan st trong Hnh 7.11 trong cc doanh nghip ti min Nam c xu hng c cng
on c s cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip ti min Bc.
- 71 -
Bng 7.17 Phc li x hi (%)
Tng
s
Siu
nh
Thnh Nng
th
thn
Min
Nam
Min
Bc
Nh
Va
ng bo him x hi
21,9
4,2
47,5
92,2
33,3
12,0
29,1
16,1
ng bo him y t
22,5
4,3
49,2
92,2
33,5
12,9
30,1
16,3
Bo him tht nghip
16,4
2,0
35,5
79,4
26,5
7,5
22,8
11,1
Bi thng trc tip i vi tai

nn hoc m do cng vic
35,0
21,6
54,1
85,8
51,0
21,0
43,9
27,6
Ngh m
27,8
9,5
51,9
92,2
39,4
16,7
33,7
22,4
Ngh thai sn c tr lng
26,2
6,7
49,8
93,6
36,6
15,8
31,6
21,1
Ngh thai sn khng c tr

lng
57,2
44,2
74,2
97,2
79,9
35,1
67,1
48,0
Ngh php hng nm c tr

lng
26,1
7,2
50,8
91,5
36,7
15,9
31,7
20,9
Tin tr hu mt ln
22,7
4,3
46,3
86,5
33,0
12,5
28,2
17,5
Phc li cho ngi cn sng
31,4
14,7
52,4
91,4
40,1
22,7
39,3
23,9
Ghi ch: T l quan st thiu thng tin kh ph bin trong cc cu hi ny. Doanh nghip thiu thng tin b loi khi
cc nhm. iu tra nm 2011.
Phc li x hi cng thay i gia gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun l. Hnh 7.4
cho thy ch s hu/ngi qun l n c chiu hng cung cp tt c cc loi hnh phc
li x hi so vi ch s hu/ngi qun l nam. Nhng pht hin ny ph hp vi cc
pht hin ca Rand v Tarp (2011) vi kt lun rng cc doanh nghip c ch s hu/
ngi qun l n c xu hng cung cp cho ngi lao ng cc loi phc li x hi nh
ngh php v bo him y t hn cc doanh nghip c ch s hu/ngi qun l nam.
- 72 -
Hnh 7.4 Phc li x hi theo gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun l

67.3
51.6
41.5
32.6
16.1
32.8
16.8
BHXH BHYT
38.5
31.4
23.6
22.0
37.0
36.7
20.0
20.4
12.6
BH
tht
nghip
Bi
thng
tai
nn
Ngh
m
Tr cp Ngh
thai sn thai sn
khng
c tr
cp
Ngh
php
42.3
33.2
N
Nam
25.3
16.9
Tr cp Tr cp
ngh
t tut
hu
Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2011. Nhng doanh nghip thiu quan st b loi.
Hnh 7.5 cho thy t l bnh qun lao ng thng xuyn ton b thi gian c hp
ng lao ng chnh thc l 26,7% trong nm 2011. T l lao ng bnh qun c hp
ng lao ng chnh thc c s khc bit ln theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn.
Bnh qun, gn 90% lao ng trong cc doanh nghip va c hp ng lao ng chnh
thc so vi 10% s lao ng trong cc doanh nghip siu nh. Hnh 7.5 cng cho thy
ch s hu/ngi qun l n thng c lc lng lao ng chnh thc v gn 35% s
lao ng ca h c hp ng. T l no cao hn ng k so vi doanh nghip c ch s
hu/ngi qun l nam. Mc d hp ng ng vai tr quan trng trong vic m bo
phc li x hi, nhng pht hin ny tng thch vi cc kt qu rng ch s hu/ngi
qun l n c xu hng cung cp phc li x hi cao hn.
- 73 -
Hnh 7.5 Hp ng chnh thc theo gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun l

100
90
80
70
60
N
50
Nam
Tng
40
30
20
10
0
Tng s
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Thnh th Nng thn
Nam
Bc
Hnh 7.5 cho thy ch c mt phn ca lc lng lao ng c hp ng chnh thc

v nhng hp ng ny c thi hn khc nhau. Bng 7.18 cng cho thy, bnh qun,
hn 75% nhng hp ng chnh thc ny c thi hn trn 12 thng v 37% nhng hp
ng ny l hp ng v thi hn.
Bng 7.18 Thi hn ca hp ng chnh thc (phn trm ngi lao ng)
Tng s
Siu nh Nh
Va
Thnh th
Nng thn
Hp ng v thi hn
37,2
35,2
36,2
41,9
36,0
40,2
C thi hn t 12 n 36
thng
38,6
39,5
39,8
34,1
40,6
33,4
C thi hn t 3 n 12
thng
20,7
21,5
20,4
20,7
20,3
21,7
C thi hn di 3 thng
3,6
3,7
3,6
3,3
3,1
4,7
S doanh nghip
547
109
325
113
396
151
Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2011. Nhng s liu ny trnh by t l lao ng c hp ng vi thi hn c th.
- 74 -
8 Nng lc ca doanh ngip

Nhng nhn t gn vi nng lc ca cc DNNVV s c phn tch trong chng
ny vi mc tiu gn kt mt s c im ca hot ng ca ch s hu/ngi qun l
doanh nghip. Cc phn tch c thc hin ch yu da trn b s liu iu tra nm
2011 cng nh c so snh vi kt qu iu tra nm 2009 v s liu tng hp ngi s
dng lao ng-ngi lao ng. Da trn b s liu ca cc nm, cc phn tch v s
thay i ca DNNVV trong giai on 2009-2011 c lm sng t. Kt cu ca chng
bao gm: Phn u trnh by tng quan cc c im chnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun
l v phn cn li lin kt nhng nng lc ny vi cc o lng khc v hot ng ca
doanh nghip.
8.1 c im ca ch s hu
Da trn nghin cu ca Sutton (2004)11, nng lc doanh nghip c chia thnh
hai dng thc l nng lc ni v nng lc n. Trong , nng lc ni c hiu l nng
sut lao ng v cht lng sn phm v nng lc n bao gm kin thc ca cc c nhn
trong doanh nghip12. Trong cc phn tip theo, nhng nng lc n ny c o lng
bng kinh nghim lm vic ca ch s hu/ngi qun l, trnh hc vn v gii tnh.
Thng thng, ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh hc vn cao hn c k
vng s tng cng nng lc ca doanh nghip v theo , c tc ng tch cc n hot
ng ca doanh nghip. Trnh hc vn cao hn c th gip ch s hu/ngi qun l
hc c cc quy trnh sn xut mi v theo , nng cao tnh linh hot ca ch s hu/
ngi qun l. Vn con ngi thng c o lng l s nm i hc hoc trnh hc
vn. Cc nghin cu nh lng cho thy trnh hc vn c tng quan thun vi s
tng trng ca doanh nghip (Mengiste, 2006). Tuy nhin, tc ng ca hc vn n
tng trng ca doanh nghip cha c xc nh r rng (Nichter v Goldmark, 2009).
Nichter v Goldmark (2009) xut rng bng vic xc nh mt ngng hc vn c
th ca quc gia, tc ng ca hc vn s tr nn r rng hn hc vn trn ngng
ny c tc ng tch cc n tng trng ca doanh nghip. Do , nng lc u tiu
ca ch s hu/ngi qun l c xem xt l hc vn. Tuy nhin, trong chng ny,
gi thuyt l trnh hc vn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l c tng quan thun vi
hot ng ca doanh nghip.
11 Ghi ch khng chnh thc ca John Sutton da trn bi ging Clarendon nm 2004.
12 Cht lng sn phm c xc nh l mc sn sng ca ngi mua tr cho sn phm c th ny so vi mt
sn phm ca doanh nghip i th.
- 75 -
Kinh nghim lm vic trc y cng ng gp cho nng lc ca ch s hu/

ngi qun l thng qua tch ly k nng v kin thc qua cng vic. Do vy, cng vic
trc y lm tng kh nng ca ch s hu/ngi qun l. Bn cnh , kinh nghim
c c t cng vic trc y s m rng mi quan h x hi ca ch s hu/ngi
qun l v theo c tc ng gin tip n hot ng ca doanh nghip. Mi quan h
x hi s c cp trong phn sau ca bo co. V vy, mi quan h gia thc trng
cng vic trc y ca ch s hu/ngi qun l v hot ng ca doanh nghip s
c phn tch trong phn tip theo.
V nh hng ca gii tnh n hot ng ca doanh nghip, chng ti k vng
ch s hu/ngi qun l nam s c tc ng tch cc n hot ng ca doanh nghip
c bit l i vi tng trng ca doanh nghip. K vng ny mt phn da trn cc
nghin cu v nhng hn ch ca cc ch s hu/ngi qun l ti cc quc gia ang
pht trin (Goedhuys v Sleuwaegen, 2000). V d, ph n ti cc quc gia ang pht
trin c quyn li php l hn ch, tip cn tn dng hn ch trong khi phi thc hin
ngha v gia nh (Ngn hng th gii (IFC), 2012; Fletschner, 2009; Amin 2011).
Nhng hn ch ny ca lnh o n c th dn n hiu qu v tng trng doanh
nghip thp hn trong cc doanh nghip do ph n ng u/lm ch. Do vy, mi
quan h gia gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun l v hot ng ca doanh nghip s
c xem xt.
Bng 8.1 trnh by trnh hc vn c bn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l theo
nhm quy m doanh nghip v a bn. Theo Bng 8.1, 61,5% tt c ch s hu/ngi
qun l trong nm 2011 tt nghip trung hc ph thng v 28,4% tt nghip trung
hc c s. Nhng pht hin ny cho thy trnh hc vn kh cao trong cc DNNVV
Vit Nam. Trnh hc vn tng nh gia nm 2009 v 2011 vi xp x 58% ch s
hu/ngi qun l c trnh trung hc ph thng trong nm 2009.
- 76 -
Bng 8.1 Trnh hc vn c bn v kinh nghim lm vic ca ch s hu/ngi

qun l theo quy m doanh nghip v a bn
Tng s
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Thnh th Nng thn Min Nam Min Bc
Hc vn
c bn ca 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011
ngi tr li
Cha tt
3,9 1,5 5,0 2,0 1,8 0,7 0,6 0,0 3,2 1,4 4,4 1,6 2,4 0,9 5,9 2,3
nghip tiu
hc
Tt nghip
tiu hc
9,2
Tt nghip
trung hc
c s
28,6 28,4 36,1 35,7 15,5 14,2 4,4 4,3 19,3 16,6 35,9 37,3 30,1 31,9 26,5 23,7
Tt nghip
trung hc
ph thng
58,3 61,5 47,2 51,6 77,6 80,9 95,0 95,0 70,1 76,5 49,1 50,3 60,9 60,9 54,7 62,3
Tnh trng
cng vic
trc y
8,6
11,7 10,8 5,1
4,2 0,0 0,7
7,4
5,5 10,6 10,9 6,6 6,3 12,9 11,7
Lm cng
n lng
26,1 20,1 23,8 18,6 29,7 22,5 35,2 27,0 24,1 16,7 27,7 22,7 33,0 25,5 16,6 12,7
ti doanh
nghip quc
doanh
Lm cng
n lng
ti doanh
22,9 25,5 20,3 21,0 28,5 34,2 27,7 40,4 31,6 36,4 16,2 17,3 16,0 19,4 32,7 33,7
nghip
ngoi quc
doanh
T lm
trong ngnh
ch bin
8,6
T lm
trong ngnh
dch v
15,9 18,9 15,6 19,5 17,2 18,3 13,8 14,9 16,7 20,5 15,3 17,7 11,8 15,4 21,7 23,8
8,7
8,8
9,4
9,0
8,2 4,4 2,1
7,9
8,3
9,1 8,9 7,9 8,5 9,4
8,8
S hu hoc
trang tri tp 13,3 14,7 17,8 19,5 5,1 4,6 1,3 0,7 2,6 2,7 21,7 23,6 18,7 20,4 5,7 6,7
th
13,1 12,2 13,7 11,9 10,6 12,3 17,6 14,9 17,2 15,4 9,9 9,8 12,6 10,7 13,8 14,3
Khc
Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2011. T l ch s hu/ngi qun l. Nhm Cha tt nghip tiu hc bao gm ch s
hu/ngi qun l Khng i hc v Cha tt nghip tiu hc.
- 77 -
Bng 8.1 cng trnh by hc vn trong mi tng quan vi quy m doanh nghip v
a bn. T l ch s hu/ngi qun l c hc vn cao c hiu l ch s hu/ngi
qun l c hc vn trung hc ph thng, tng ln cng vi quy m doanh nghip v ch
s hu/ngi qun l c trnh hc vn cao chim phn ln trong c cc doanh nghip
nh v va. T l ch s hu c trnh hc vn cao cao hn ng k ti khu vc thnh
th so vi ti khu vc nng thn. Trong nm 2011 cc doanh nghip va khng c ch s
hu/ngi qun l c trnh ti thiu l tt nghip tiu hc. Nhng kt qu ny khng
ngc nhin v cc doanh nghip ln hn v cc doanh nghip thnh th thng p dng
cng ngh cao v do vy cn ch s hu/ngi qun l c k nng hn.
V kinh nghim t cng vic trc y, Bng 8.1 cho thy nhng ngi trc y
lm cng n lng chim 45% tng s ch s hu/ngi qun l trong nm 2011. T
l ch s hu trc y l ngi lm cng n lng tng ln cng vi quy m doanh
nghip v thc trng ny thng nht qua cc nm. Ngc li, t l ch s hu trc
y lm vic trong ngnh nng nghip gim cng vi quy m doanh nghip v gn nh
bng 0 trong cc doanh nghip va. T Bng 8.1 chng ta thy dng nh ch s hu/
ngi qun l trong cc doanh nghip ti min Bc Vit Nam c xu hng trc y l
ngi lm cng n lng trong cc doanh nghip quc doanh cao hn so vi cc ch s
hu/ngi qun l ti min Nam.
Hnh 8.1 trnh by trnh hc vn c bn theo gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi
qun l. Trong nm 2011, 62,1% ch s hu, ngi qun l n tt nghip trung hc
c s v t l ny cao hn mt cht so vi t l ch s hu/ngi qun l nam. Ngc
li, 30,5% ch s hu/ngi qun l nam tt nghip trung hc c s so vi 24,9%
ch s hu/ngi qun l n. ng thi, dng nh trnh hc vn ca ch s hu/
ngi qun l ch khc nhau khng ng k theo gii tnh. Tuy nhin cn lu s khc
bit ny li thuc v trnh trung hc c s.
- 78 -
Hnh 8.1 Hc vn c bn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l theo gii tnh (%)

61.1 62.1
30.5
1.2 2.1
Cha tt nghip
tiu hc
7.2
24.9
Nam
10.8
Tt nghip
tiu hc
Tt nghip
PTCS
Tt nghip
PTTH
iu tra nm 2011.
Hnh 8.2 trnh by trnh hc vn c bn theo tnh chnh thc/phi chnh thc
ca doanh nghip. T l ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh trung hc ph thng xp
x 71% i vi cc doanh nghip chnh thc v ch c 37,5% i vi doanh nghip phi
chnh thc. Hnh 8.2 cho thy trnh hc vn khc nhau ng k gia cc doanh nghip
chnh thc v phi chnh thc. S khc bit ny c th c gii thch bng thc t l cc
doanh nghip phi chnh thc hu ht l cc doanh nghip siu nh v do vy thng t c
ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh hc vn cao nh trnh by trong Bng 8.1.
Hnh 8.2 Hc vn c bn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l theo tnh chnh thc/phi
chnh thc (%)
71.4
49.1
37.5
Phi chnh thc
19.9
1.4 1.8
Cha tt nghip
tiu hc
7.3
11.6
Tt nghip
tiu hc
Tt nghip
PTCS
Tt nghip
PTTH
Ghi ch: S lng quan st: 1.718 doanh nghip chnh thc v 709 doanh nghip phi chnh thc.
- 79 -
Chnh thc
Hc vn c bn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l theo ngnh c trnh by trong

Bng 8.2, dng nh t l cc doanh nghip ngnh cao su v sn xut sn phm kim
loi c c t l ch s hu/ngi qun l c hc vn cao cao hn so vi cc doanh
nghip cn li. Trong tt c cc ngnh, dng nh trnh hc vn ca ch s hu/
ngi qun l nm 2011 cao hn nm 2009.
Bng 8.2 Hc vn c bn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l theo ngnh v doanh
nghip h gia nh
Hc vn
c bn ca
ngi tr
li
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009
Khong phi
kim
Cao su
Kim loi
c
Ni tht,
v.v
Doanh
nghip h gia
nh
Thc phm
v ung
2011
Cha tt
nghip tiu
hc
6,2
2,4
3,4
1,6
5,8
3,8
3,6
1,6
1,8
Tt nghip
tiu hc
12,7
13,3
8,9
10,0
8,7
7,9
8,3
7,8
6,9
6,5
10,4
9,8
Tt nghip
trung hc
c s
35,3
37,3
39,9
35,7
10,1
13,2
32,6
28,4
25,7
23,4
37,2
33,0 38,25 40,33
Tt nghip
trung hc
ph thng
45,8
46,9
47,8
52,6
75,4
78,9
55,3
63,8
63,9
68,5
50,6
57,2 43,48 45,20
8.2
5,36
2,15
12,91 12,33
Hot ng v s tn ti ca doanh nghip
lin kt c im ca ch s hu hoc ngi qun l vi hot ng ca doanh

nghip, cn phi lm r hot ng ca doanh nghip c o lng nh th no v hot
ng ca doanh nghip c th c o lng bng nhiu phng thc khc nhau. Trong
phn tch ny, hot ng ca doanh nghip c o lng bng tng trng doanh thu,
tng trng vic lm v xc sut tn ti. Trong phn trc chng ti gii thch ti
sao hc vn, kinh nghim lm vic v gii tnh c vai tr quan trng i vi hot ng
ca doanh nghip. Ngoi ra, Nichter v Goldmark (2009) cng nghin cu cc yu t
quan trng i km vi tng trng ca doanh nghip v nhn mnh tm quan trng ca
hc vn, kinh nghim lm vic v gii. Trn c s , phn ny lin kt nhng bin trn
vi tng trng v xc sut tn ti ca doanh nghip. Chng ti k vng rng trnh
- 80 -
hc vn v kinh nghim t cng vic trc y s c tng quan thun chiu vi tng
trng v xc sut tn ti ca doanh nghip. Ngc li, chng ti cng k vng rng
ch s hu/ngi qun l n c tng quan ngc chiu vi tng trng ca doanh
nghip.
Khi tm hiu cc nhn t quyt nh tng trng v xc sut tn ti ca doanh
nghip, chng ti tun theo nghin cu ca Hansen v cng s (2009). Do vy tng
trng doanh nghip c o lng l tng trng doanh thu thc t nm 2009 n
2011 v chng ti xy dng mt ch tiu c gi tr 1 nu doanh nghip tn ti trong giai
on 2009-2011. Hi quy bnh phng nh nht v c lng Probit c thc hin v
cc kt qu c trnh by trong Bng 8.3. Cc yu t quyt nh chun c a vo
tt c cc hi quy (quy m doanh nghip, a bn, ngnh, hnh thc s hu php l, tnh
chnh thc v tui ca doanh nghip). Bn cnh bnh phng quy m doanh nghip
cng c a vo c c li nhun thu nh theo quy m v y l pht hin chung
trong phng trnh tng trng. Cc bin gi bao gm trnh hc vn, kinh nghim
lm vic trc y v gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun l cng c a vo nh
cc bin c quan tm13. Cui cng, chng ti a vo mt ch tiu v cc doanh
nghip c ci tin. Theo Hansen v cng s (2009) cc doanh nghip c xem l c
tnh ci cch nu cc doanh nghip to ra nhng ci tin ln trong cc sn phm hin
ti hoc bt u sn xut sn phm mi k t iu tra trc.
Cc kt qu trong ct (1) ca Bng 8.3 cho thy khng c bin no trong cc bin
cp khng c ngha ln trong cc hi quy. iu ny kh ngc nhin v ngc
li vi nhng g c k vng. Mc ngha thp ca c tnh thng s c lin quan
n bin gi gii ngc li vi cc kt qu ca Goedhuys v Sleuwaegen (2000). Bn
cnh , cc kt qu cng ngc li vi cc kt qu ca Segal v cng s (2009). Segal
v cng s (2009) thc hin nghin cu v cc kho thc phm t nhin ti M v cho
thy c trnh hc vn v kinh nghim qun l ngnh ca ngi sng lp c mi tng
quan thun vi hot ng ca doanh nghip. Quy m v tui ca doanh nghip thng
c tng quan ngc vi tng tng doanh nghip (Jovanovic, 1982; Hansen v cng
s, 2009). C quy m v tui ca doanh nghip u c gi tr m v c ngha v mt
thng k trong ct (1) ca Bng 8.3 v khng nh mi quan h ngc chiu nh k
13 Hi quy khng c iu chnh i vi cc doanh nghip thot khi th trng khng c khng nh.
- 81 -
vng14. Bn cnh , gi tr m ca c tnh thng s v quy m doanh nghip ph hp

vi cc nghin cu khc nhau da trn kinh nghim ( Mengistae 2006; Hansen v cng
s, 2009).
Bng 8.3 cng cho thy tc ng bin c tnh t m hnh Probit c tnh xc sut
mt doanh nghip c chn ngu nhin tn ti trong giai on 2009-2011. Mt ln
na, cc bin gii v trnh hc vn, ch s hu trc y cng lm vic cho mnh
v ch s hu/ngi qun l nam c ngha khng ln. Kt qu ny ngc li vi cc
kt qu ca Mengistae (2006). Mengistae (2006) nhn thy vn con ngi ca doanh
nghip c o bng s nm i hc, l mt nhn t quan trng quyt nh s tn ti ca
doanh nghip. Cui cng, vic gii thiu sn phm mi hoc ci tin sn phm hin ti
c tng quan thun v c ngha thng k vi s tn ti ca doanh nghip. Kt qu
ny cng ph hp vi cc pht hin ca Hansen v cng s (2009). Tuy nhin, tng
quan thun ny c th c tng cng do thc t nhng doanh nghip gii thiu hoc
ci tin sn phm c kh nng p ng nhng thay i ca th trng tt hn v do vy
c xc sut tn ti cao hn.
Cc kt qu t Bng 8.3 cho thy vic gii thiu v ci tin sn phm khng c
ngha ln trong mi quan h vi tng trng doanh nghip. Nichter v Goldmark
(2009) xut rng tnh trng ngho ti cc quc gia ang pht trin i khi to ra cc
doanh nghip c nh hng tn ti hn cc doanh nghip c nh hng tng trng
do thiu cc c hi ngh nghip khc. V vic gii thiu v ci tin sn phm c tng
quan thun vi s tn ti ca doanh nghip trong Ct (2) ca Bng 8.3, iu ny c th
cho thy hot ng ci tin ca cc DNNVV ca Vit Nam c xu hng tn ti nhiu
hn l tng trng. Do vy, iu ny c th gii thch tng quan (thun) khng ln
gia hot ng ci tin v tng trng doanh nghip c trnh by trong Ct (1).
14 Tuy nhin cn lu rng cc doanh nghip ln (hn 300 lao ng) b loi khi mu.
- 82 -
Bng 8.3 Nng lc, tng trng v s tn ti ca doanh nghip
Bin c lp:
Gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun l (nam=1)
Kinh nghim t cng vic trc y (T lm vic cho
mnh=1)
Trnh hc vn (Tt nghip trung hc ph thng=1)
Bnh qun quy m doanh nghip/100
Tui ca doanh nghip
Bnh qun tui ca doanh nghip/100
Gii thiu sn phm mi hoc ci tin sn phm hin ti
(c=1)
T nhn/1 thnh vin
Hp danh/Tp th/Hp tc x
Cng ty TNHH
Cng ty c phn
M s thu (c=1)
Bin gi ngnh
Bin gi a bn
S quan st
(1)
Tng trng doanh
thu
-0,049
(-1,60)
0,017
(0,96)
0,015
(0,47)
-0,017
(-0,55)
-0,095*** (-3,81)
0,000
(0,41)
-0,009** (-2,08)
0,020**
(2,46)
0,006
0,003
0,029**
-0,000*
0,004
-0,003
(0,32)
(0,15)
(2,33)
(-1,79)
(1,36)
(-0,53)
0,034**
-0,051
-0,021
-0,024
-0,107*
0,015
C
C
2.454
(1,97)
(-1,31)
(-0,38)
(-0,78)
(-1,66)
(0,56)
-0,007
0,058
0,097
0,121**
0,233**
-0,029
C
C
1.823
(-0,24)
(0,97)
(0,97)
(2,02)
(2,29)
(-0,79)
(2)
Tn ti
Ghi ch: Bin ph thuc: tng trng doanh thu hng nm trong (1) v ch tiu ring v tn ti trong (2). Cc c
tnh OLS v c lng Probit, tc ng bin c bo co trong (2). T-statistics da trn sai s chun gp trong
ngoc n. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm tham chiu v thc trng php l l doanh
nghip h gia nh. Hng s c trong mi hi quy. Mu cn bng trong (1) v mu khng cn bng trong (2). Cc
bin c lp c quan st trong nm 2009.
Bng 8.4 trnh by cc hi quy c lng bnh phng nh nht c thc hin
v tng trng doanh nghip t nm 2008 v 2010. Cc bin tng t nh cc bin c
trong Bng 8.3 c a vo hi quy trong Bng 8.4. Bn cnh , da trn s liu tng
hp ngi s dng lao ng-ngi lao ng, trnh hc vn bnh qun ca ngi lao
ng c a vo ct (2) ca Bng 8.4. Vic a bin ny vo lm gim mu xung
cn 449 doanh nghip. Do , mu rt nh v c th a ra kt lun mt cch thn
trng. Tuy nhin, t c mt s kt qu th v.
Th nht, dng nh trnh hc vn cao hn c tng quan thun vi tng trng
lao ng, tuy nhin ch c ln mc 10%. Kt qu ny ph hp vi Mengistae
(2006) vi pht hin rng nhng doanh nghip c iu hnh bi cc ch s hu c
thi gian i hc di hn c xu hng tn ti cao hn v c t l tng trng doanh
nghip cao hn. Mengistae thc hin nghin cu ca mnh da trn b s liu ca cc
- 83 -
doanh nghip ch bin ti Ethiopia v o lng t l tng trng ca doanh nghip l

tng trng vic lm bnh qun hng nm t nm 1993 n 1995. Trong ct (1), tc
ng ca kinh nghim lm vic trc y l khng ln. Kt qu ny cng ph hp vi
cc kt qu ca Mengistae (2006). Quy m doanh nghip c ngha ln nh k vng.
Cui cng, cc cng ty c phn, cc doanh nghip t nhn, cng ty hp danh/tp th/
hp tc x v cng ty TNHH c tng quan thun v ln vi tng trng lao ng so
vi cc doanh nghip h gia nh (nhm tham chiu). iu ny tng ng vi kt qu
t cc vng iu tra trc.
Th hai, cc kt qu t ct (2) trong Bng 8.4 c xem xt. Th v nht l kt qu
ni bt t bin trnh hc vn trung bnh ca ngi lao ng. Bin ny c ngha ln
v c gi tr dng cho thy trnh hc vn bnh qun c tng quan thun vi tng
trng lao ng.
Bng 8.4: Nng lc v tng trng lao ng
Bin ph thuc:
Gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun l (nam=1)
Kinh nghim t cng vic trc y (T lm vic cho
mnh=1)
Trnh hc vn (Tt nghip trung hc ph thng=1)
Bnh qun quy m doanh nghip/100
Tui ca doanh nghip
Bnh qun tui ca doanh nghip/100
Gii thiu sn phm mi hoc ci tin sn phm hin ti
(c=1)
T nhn/1 thnh vin
Cng ty TNHH
Cng ty c phn
M s thu (c=1)
Hc vn trung bnh ca ngi lao ng
Bin gi ngnh
Bin gi a bn
S quan st
(1)
(2)
Tng trng vic lm Tng trng lao ng
0,035
(0,64)
-0,006
(-0,11)
-0,006
0,083*
-0,410***
0,002***
-0,001
-0,003
(-0,11)
(1,79)
(-7,24)
(4,07)
(-0,14)
(-0,21)
-0,082*
-0,007
-0,283***
0,010
0,002**
-0,005
(-1,70)
(-0,13)
(-5,77)
(0,71)
(2,54)
(-0,71)
0,059
0,713***
0,552***
0,758***
0,139***
-0,169*
C
C
1.823
(1,28)
(2,82)
(3,89)
(5,02)
(2,74)
(-1,75)
0,039
0,225*
0,448***
0,192**
0,090
0,081
0,069***
C
C
449
(0,80)
(1,76)
(3,48)
(2,10)
(0,62)
(1,16)
(2,86)
Ghi ch: Bin gi ph thuc: Tng trng s lng lao ng t nm 2009 n nm 2011. Cc bin c lp c
quan st trong nm 2009. Cc c tnh OLS. Mu cn bng. T-statistics da trn sai s chun gp trong ngoc
n. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha tng ng 10%, 5% v 1%. Nhm tham chiu v tnh trng php l l
doanh nghip h gia nh. C bao gm hng s.
- 84 -
8.3 u t, ci tin v ng dng cng ngh

T l doanh nghip thc hin u t mi chim gn 56% trong nm 2011 v 60%
trong nm 2009 (khng c bo co). Do vy, t trng doanh nghip thc hin u t
mi gim trong giai on 2 nm. S st gim ny c th cho thy cc doanh ngip ang
b hn ch ngun lc tn dng. Bng 8.5 a ra phn tch v tng u t cho cc nhm
doanh nghip khc nhau cn c theo trnh hc vn v thc trng cng vic trc
y ca ch s hu/ngi qun l. Dng nh c nh hng ca trnh hc vn v t
l doanh nghip c thc hin u t mi cao hn ng k i vi cc doanh nghip c
ch s hu/ngi qun l c hc vn cao. Cn lu rng doanh nghip c ch s hu/
ngi qun l trc y lm cng n lng c chiu hng thc hin u t mi cao
hn ng k so vi cc doanh nghip c ch s hu/ngi qun l trc y t lm vic
cho mnh. Phn ln cc u t c thc hin cho thit b, t ai, xy dng v khc
trong t l u t vo nghin cu, pht trin v vn con ngi gn nh bng khng.
Thc trng ny xy ra mi trnh hc vn v nhm cng vic trc y15.
i vi ci tin cht lng sn phm v nng sut lao ng ca doanh nghip, u
t vo nghin cu, pht trin v vn con ngi c k vng c tc ng thun. Mc d
t l thp nhng ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh trung hc c s hoc trung hc
ph thng u c xu hng u t vo nghin cu, pht trin v vn con ngi cao hn
so vi ch s hu/ngi qun l khng c hoc c hc vn thp.
Trong phn tch trc, ch tiu v sng to c tng quan ln vi s tn ti ca
doanh nghip (Bng 8.2). Tng t, mc ci tin thng c coi l nhn t c nh
hng quan trng ti s pht trin v tn ti ca doanh nghip v do vy c lin quan
cht ch vi hot ng ca doanh nghip (Deng v cng s, 2012). Do , mi quan h
gia ci tin v nng lc ca ch s hu/ngi qun l c xem xt.
15 Brach, Newman, Rand v Tarp (2012) nhn thy c t l tng i nh cc doanh nghip Vit nam tham gia tch
cc vo Nghin cu & Pht trin v cc doanh nghip siu nh, nh v va c ngha thng k tng i c xu
hng t thc hin Nghin cu & Pht trin hn so vi cc doanh nghip ln.
- 85 -
Bng 8.5: u t mi (t iu tra trc)
T l u t mi vo
Nghin
u t t Xy Thit cu & Pht
mi (%) ai dng
b
trin
Tng s
56,1
2,69 8,67 26,51 0,36
Hc vn c bn
Cha tt nghip tiu hc

48,6
0,00 8,06 32,15 0,00
Tt nghip tiu hc
44,7
2,86 10,86 30,02 0,22
Cha tt nghip trung hc c s 49,0
2,46 8,60 26,54 0,74
Cha tt nghip trung hc ph
thng
61,2
2,81 8,48 26,02 0,24
Thc trng cng vic trc y
Lm cng n lng trong doanh

nghip quc doanh
63,5
2,75 9,70 30,39 0,63
Lm cng n lng trong doanh
nghip phi quc doanh
63,0
2,53 7,27 28,02 0,30
T lm cho mnh trong ngnh
ch bin
56,2
2,74 10,73 23,87 0,00
T lm cho mnh trong ngnh
dch v
51,9
2,18 9,48 19,71 0,32
S hu hoc trang tri tp th
49,9
3,01 8,45 28,84 0,00
Khc
43,6
3,44 7,29 24,43 0,78
Vn
con
ngi
0,24
0,00
0,00
0,06
Khc
61,24
59,79
56,04
61,60
0,34
61,67
0,41
55,43
0,32
61,41
0,03
61,48
0,24
0,08
0,00
68,06
59,63
64,05
Ghi ch: Theo phn trm tng u t. u t trong cc doanh nghip khc v bng sng ch b loi v chim t hn
1%. iu tra nm 2011.
Bng 8.6 trnh by t l doanh nghip u t vo sn phm mi trong nm 2011.

T l doanh nghip gii thiu t nht mt sn phm mi trong giai on nghin cu
tng t 2.8% trong nm 2009 ln 4% trong nm 2011. Ngc li, t l doanh nghip ci
tin sn phm gim t 41,5% xung cn 38,4% trong nm 2011 (s liu cho nm 2009
khng c bo co). Nhng kt qu ny da trn mu khng cn bng nhng thng
nht vi cc kt qu t mu cn bng.
- 86 -
Bng 8.6: Ci tin, hc vn v kinh nghim ca ch s hu/ngi qun l
Tng s
Gii thiu sn
phm mi
Ci tin sn
phm hin ti
Gii thiu cng

ngh mi
4,0
38,4
13,0
Cha tt nghip tiu hc
2,7
24,3
13,5
Tt nghip tiu hc
3,4
27,4
7,2
Cha tt nghip trung hc c s
2,3
27,5
6,7
Cha tt nghip trung hc ph thng
4,9
45,3
16,7
Lm cng n lng trong doanh nghip

quc doanh
4,9
39,5
13,5
Lm cng n lng trong doanh nghip

phi quc doanh
4,0
45,0
13,9
T lm cho mnh trong ngnh ch bin 4,3
33,3
15,7
T lm cho mnh trong ngnh dch v
3,7
37,3
12,9
S hu hoc trang tri tp th
2,5
27,2
7,3
Khc
4,4
41,6
15,2
Nam
3,7
37,6
12,0
4,6
39,8
14,6
S quan st
97
932
315
Hc vn ca ngi tr li
Gii tnh
Bng 8.6 cho thy mi lin h gia t l ci tin vi hc vn v kinh nghim lm

vic trc y ca ch s hu/ngi qun l. Ch s hu/ngi hc vn c hc vn
cao c t l gii thiu sn phm mi cao hn v t l ch s hu/ngi qun l c hc
vn tt gii thiu sn phm mi tng nh t 3,6% trong nm 2009 ln 4,9% trong nm
2011. iu ny c th do ch s hu/ngi qun l c xu hng mun c kh nng x
l cng ngh mi lin quan n gii thiu sn phm mi. Dng nh cc doanh nghip
c ngi qun l l nhng ngi trc y lm cng n lng (c doanh nghip quc
doanh v ngoi quc doanh) c xu hng ci tin sn phm hin ti cao hn so vi cc
doanh nghip c qun l l ngi trc y t lm cho mnh. V gii thiu sn phm
mi, ch s hu/ngi qun l trc y l ngi lm cng n lng v t lm cho
mnh trong ngnh ch bin c xu hng gii thiu sn phm mi cao hn so vi ch s
- 87 -
hu/ngi qun l trc y t lm cho mnh trong ngnh dch v hoc nng nghip.
Vic ngi lao ng ri b doanh nghip hin ti xy dng doanh nghip mi c
cng hot ng kinh doanh l ph bin. Vic ny c cp nh nhng doanh nghip
ph v nhng doanh nghip ny thng hot ng kh tt v mt tn ti v tng trng
(Hansen v cng s, 2009). Kt qu t Bng 8.6 cho thy cc doanh nghip ph (c
hiu l cc doanh nghip c ch s hu/ngi qun l trc y l ngi lm cng n
lng) nhn chung c tnh ci tin hn c bit v mt ci tin sn phm hin ti.
Bng 8.6 cung cp bc tranh v quy trnh/cng ngh sn xut mi. Khong 13%
tng s doanh nghip gii thiu quy trnh/cng ngh sn xut mi trong nm 2011 so
vi 14% trong nm 2009. Nhng kt qu ny thng nht v c lp vi vic mu c
nghin cu l mu cn bng hay mu khng cn bng. i vi vic gii thiu v ci
tin sn phm hin ti, trnh hc vn c tc ng: ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh
hc vn cao c xu hng gii thiu cng ngh mi cao hn. Ch s hu/ngi qun
l n dng nh c tnh sng to hn (t) hoc gii thiu sn phm mi cao hn so vi
ch s hu/ngi qun l nam.
Hnh 8.3 ng dng cng ngh c thc hin nh th no?
Doanh nghip
iu tra
Nh cung cp
cng ngh
Doanh nghip
khc
Khc
Ghi ch: Doanh nghip c ch s hu/ngi qun l khng tt nghip tiu hc b loi do nhng doanh nghip ny
chim 1.5% (3 doanh nghip). iu tra nm 2011.
- 88 -
Trong s 315 doanh nghip gii thiu sn phm mi trong nm 2011, 65% (205
doanh nghip) thc hin ng dng k thut vo thit b. Hnh 8.3 trnh by ng dng
ny c thc hin nh th no. Bn thn doanh nghip c xu hng thc hin ng
dng khng ph thuc vo trnh hc vn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l. iu ny
c th cho thy cng ngh c gii thiu cng mc vi cng ngh ang c s
dng. ng dng k thut tin tin hn c th i hi nhiu kin thc hn v tn nhiu
chi ph hn. Do iu tra khng bao gm ch tiu v trnh cng ngh c gii thiu
nn kh xc nh c mc nng cao v mt cng ngh ca doanh nghip. Tuy
nhin, vic gii thiu v ng dng cng ngh mi ng vai tr quan trng nhm pht
trin sn phm mi, ci tin cht lng sn phm hin ti v nng cao nng sut lao
ng. Nng sut lao ng c cp trong phn sau ca chng ny v dng nh
vic gii thiu cng ngh mi c tng quan thun vi nng sut lao ng.
8.4 Trnh hc vn ca lc lng lao ng
Ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh hc vn cao c xu hng thu lao ng c
trnh hc vn cao. Da trn s liu tng hp ngi s dng lao ng-ngi lao ng
(cng c s dng trong chng 5 ca bo co ny), c th tng hp trnh hc vn
ca ch s hu vi trnh hc vn ca ngi lao ng. Vic ny c thc hin trong
Bng 8.7. T Bng 8.7 chng ta thy dng nh ch s hu/ngi qun l c hc vn
cao trn thc t c xu hng thu ngi lao ng c hc vn cao hn so vi ch s hu/
ngi qun l c hc vn thp hn. Trong nm 2011 t l ngi lao ng c trnh
Cao ng/i hc/Sau i hc l 23,6% trong nhng doanh nghip c ch s hu/ngi
qun l c trnh hc vn cao so vi 4,8% trong nhng doanh nghip c ch s hu/
ngi qun l c trnh hc vn thp hn. Tng t, t l ngi lao ng c trnh
tiu hc l 12,2% trong nhng doanh nghip c ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh
hc vn thp hn so vi 2,7% trong nhng doanh nghip c ch s hu/ngi qun l
c trnh hc vn cao.
- 89 -
Bng 8.7 Hc vn ca ngi lao ng theo hc vn

ca ch s hu/ngi qun l
Trnh hc vn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l

Cha tt nghip trung hc Tt nghip trung hc ph
ph thng
thng
Trnh hc vn ca ngi lao ng

Khng c trnh
0,5
0,9
Tiu hc
12,2
2,7
Trung hc c s
36,3
15,0
Trung hc ph thng
27,9
35,9
Bng k thut/cng nhn c bn
0,3
3,1
Cng nhn k thut khng c bng cp
14,6
9,5
Cng nhn k thut/chuyn mn c bn
3,4
9,5
Cao ng/i hc/sau i hc
4,8
23,6
Tng s quan st
377
1.046
Ghi ch: Da trn s liu tng hp ngi s dng lao ng-ngi lao ng. T l trong tng lc lng lao ng trong
tng nhm.
Vic k vng rng gio dc mang li cho ngi lao ng nhng k nng lm cho
h c nng sut lao ng cao hn v gio dc lm tng kh nng hc hi t kinh nghim
trc y l hp l. Jones (2011) a ra bng chng rng gio dc c tng quan cao
vi nng sut lao ng ti khu vc ch bin Ghana v ngi lao ng c trnh hc
vn cao hn c nng sut lao ng cao hn. Da trn iu ny, cc kt qu trong Bng
8.7 c th c ngha rng ch s hu/ngi qun l c hc vn cao c tc ng tch cc
gin tip n hot ng ca doanh nghip thng qua vic la chn lao ng.
Bng 8.8 Phc li x hi theo c im ca ch s hu/ngi qun l
Bo him
x hi
Bo him y t
Bo him tht
nghip
Bi thng
tai nn
Tt nghip trung hc ph thng

C
31,9
32,4
23,8
43,7
Khng
3,8
4,6
3,0
18,9
T lm vic cho mnh
11,6
12,2
8,3
26,6
Lm cng n lng
28,8
29,3
21,7
40,6
Ghi ch: iu tra nm 2011. Nhng quan st thiu b loi.
- 90 -
Bng 8.8 trnh by t l doanh nghip c phc li x hi cho ngi lao ng theo
c im ca ch s hu/ngi qun l. T Bng 8.8 chng ta thy dng nh ch s
hu/ngi lao ng c hc vn cao, ngoi vic c xu hng thu lao ng c hc vn
cao, cn c xu hng cung cp phc li x hi cao hn. 32% tng s ch s hu/ngi
qun l c trnh trung hc ph thng cung cp bo him x hi so vi t l ch c 4%
ca ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh thp hn. Xu hng tng t i vi ch s
hu/ngi qun l trc y lm cng n lng so vi ch s hu/ngi qun l trc
y t lm vic cho mnh. Cc doanh nghip cung cp nhng phc li x hi ny c th
d dng thu ht lao ng c trnh cao hn v do vy nng cao nng sut lao ng
ca doanh nghip.
8.5 Nng sut lao ng
Phn cui cng ca chng ny s xem xt quan h gia nng sut lao ng v
trnh hc vn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l, kinh nghim lm vic trc y v gii
tnh. Nng sut lao ng s c o lng theo hai phng php: (1) doanh thu thc
trn lao ng ton thi gian v (2) gi tr gia tng thc trn lao ng ton thi gian.
Theo Bng 8.9, nhng doanh nghip c ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh ph
thng trung hc bnh qun c nng sut lao ng cao hn so vi nhng doanh nghip
c ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh hc vn thp hn. Nhng doanh nghip c lnh
o nam dng nh c doanh thu thc trn lao ng ton thi gian thp hn v gi tr
gia tng thc trn lao ng ton thi gian thp hn so vi nhng doanh nghip c lnh
o n. iu ny ngc vi nhng pht hin ca Amin (2011) rng nng sut lao ng
cao hn i vi cc doanh ngip c ch s hu nam so vi cc doanh nghip c ch s
hu n16. Tnh bnh qun, dng nh nhng doanh nghip c ch s hu/ngi qun l
trc y l ngi t kinh doanh c nng sut lao ng thp hn so vi nhng doanh
nghip c ch s hu/ngi lao ng trc y lm cng n lng.
16 Tuy nhin nhng kt qu ny da trn cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc ti Nam M.
- 91 -
Bng 8.9 Nng sut lao ng theo c im ca ch s hu/ngi qun l
S quan st
Phng php 1
Phng php 2
Tng s
2.298
87,23
24,40
Tt nghip trung hc c s
C
1.414
95,15
26,85
Khng
884
74,56
20,49

T lm vic cho mnh
970
83,08
23,23
Lm cng n lng
1,328
90,26
25,26
Gii tnh
Nam
1.462
84,10
23,69
836
92,71
25,66
Nam
973
87,98
27,00
Bc
1.325
86,68
22,50
Bng 8.10 trnh by cc kt qu c lng OLS n gin xc nh nng sut lao

ng. Tt c cc bin chun u c a vo hi quy (quy m doanh nghip, a bn,
ngnh v hnh thc s hu php l). Bn cnh cc bin gi nh gii tnh ca ch s
hu/ngi qun l, trnh hc vn, cng ngh mi c gii thiu v kinh nghim
lm vic ca ch s hu/ngi qun l u c a vo. Cc kt qu khng nh phn
no nhng k vng da trn Bng 8.9.
V phng php (1) (doanh thu thc trn lao ng ton b thi gian) nng sut
lao ng gim cng vi quy m doanh nghip. iu ngc li c quan st thy trong
nm 2009. Bin gi nhn gi tr 1 nu ch s hu/ngi qun l tt nghip trung hc
ph thng c gi tr dng, tuy nhin khng ln trong ct (1). V phng php (2) (gi
tr gia tng thc trn lao ng ton thi gian) chng ti quan st thy c s tng quan
thun v c ngha ln v thng k (mc ngha 10%) gia trnh hc vn ca ch
s hu/ngi qun l v nng sut lao ng. Bin gi v ch s hu/ngi qun l nam
khng c ngha ln trong c hai phng php.
Bn cnh , vic gii thiu cng ngh mi c tng quan thun vi nng sut
lao ng, khng ph thuc vo phng php nng sut lao ng c tnh. Tuy nhin
tng quan ny c th do nguyn nhn ngc li, ngha l cc doanh nghip c nng
sut lao ng cao hn thng c xu hng gii thiu cng ngh mi trong sn xut cao
hn. Trong c hai m hnh cc doanh nghip h gia nh u c nng sut thp hn ng
- 92 -
k so vi cc doanh nghip t nhn; tr cc doanh nghip T nhn/Tp th/Hp tc x.17

Cui cng, doanh nghip c ng k chnh thc (c m s thu) c tng quan thun
vi nng sut lao ng. iu ny c th c gii thch rng cc doanh nghip chnh
thc sn sang u t cho cng nhn ca h hn nhm lm tng nng sut lao ng. Kt
qu ny ph hp vi nhng pht hin ca Rand v Torm (2012a) rng tr thnh doanh
nghip ng k chnh thc em li li ch i vi cc doanh nghip v dn n tng li
nhun v u t. Ngoi ra, vic cc doanh nghip chnh thc c xu hng thu lao ng
c trnh hc vn cao hn c th gii thch c tc ng thun v nng sut lao ng.
Bng 8.10 Hi quy nng sut lao ng
Bin ph thuc: nng sut lao ng (log)
(1)
(2)
Phng php 1
Phng php 2
Gii tnh ca ch s hu/ngi qun l

(nam=1)
-0,019
(-0,56)
0,002
(0,09)
Kinh nghim t cng vic trc y (Lm

cng n lng=1)
-0,003
(-0,09)
0,011
(0,40)
Trnh hc vn (Tt nghip trung hc ph

thng=1)
0,057
(1,57)
0,059*
(1,96)
-0,126***
(-5,90)
-0,030*
(-1,66)
Tui ca doanh nghip
-0,005**
(-2,57)
-0,005***
(-3,36)
Gii thiu cng ngh mi (c=1)
0,204***
(4,13)
0,129***
(3,23)
T nhn/1 thnh vin
0,213***
(3,36)
0,218***
(4,08)
-0,064
(-0,51)
0,057
(0,64)
Cng ty TNHH
0,383***
(6,87)
0,289***
(6,61)
Cng ty c phn
0,204**
(2,09)
0,207***
(2,92)
M s thu (c=1)
0,333***
(7,20)
0,298***
(7,68)
Bin gi ngnh
Bin gi tnh
S quan st
2.298
2.298
Ghi ch: cc c lng OLS. Bin ph thuc: log nng sut lao ng. Nng sut lao ng c o lng bng doanh
thu thc trn lao ng ton thi gian (1) v gi tr gia tng thc trn lao ng ton thi gian (2). Doanh thu thc v
gi tr gia tng thc c tnh bng cch s dng cc ch s gim pht GDP theo tnh. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc
ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. T-statistics da trn sai s chun gp trong ngoc n. Nhm tham chiu v thc trng
php l l doanh nghip h gia nh. C hng s trong tt c cc hi quy. c lng da trn cc quan st nm 2011.
17 Cc kt qu v thc trng s hu php l thng nht vi nhng kt qu trong bo co nm 2009.
- 93 -
9 Mng li x hi
Chng ny bao trm nhiu kha cnh khc nhau v mng li x hi ca doanh
nghip bao gm quy m mng li kinh doanh ca doanh nghip, cu thnh v s a
dng ca cc mi quan h, tc ng ca cc mi quan h vi tng trng v tnh ci tin
ca doanh nghip. Phn tch c bn c da trn thng tin c cung cp trong phn
mng li x hi ca iu tra DNNVV, trong vic tng hp tnh ci tin ca doanh
nghip, thnh vin trong hip hi kinh doanh chnh th v yu cu sn xut i vi cc
nh cung cp v khch hng c lin quan n chuyn giao cng ngh.
Trong chng ny, vn mng li x hi c xem l ti sn c nhn mang li li
ch cho mt doanh nghip n l trong cc doanh nghip thu c li ch t vic
hiu bit ln nhau v cc doanh nghip ny hnh thnh mng li cc doanh nghip lin
kt vi nhau. nh hng ny ph hp vi nghin cu ca Granovetters t nm 1995.
C mt mng li x hi rng ln l ti sn c gi tr c th gip cc doanh nghip tip
cn vi thng tin v cng ngh mi v iu ny c th dn n cc c hi mang li li
nhun cho doanh nghip cng nh tip cn vi cc ngun lc. L thuyt ch ra vai tr
ca cc mng li x hi trong vic gip cc doanh nghip vt qua cc tr ngi c lin
quan n cc chi ph giao dch (Kranton, 1996; McMillan v Woodruff, 1999), hiu lc
hp ng (Fafchamps, 1998) v quy nh (Putman, 1993). Hn na, s tin tng ln
nhau c c thng qua mi quan h di hn vi khch hng v cc nh cung cp c
th lm cho cc doanh nghip ti m phn ngha v hp ng d dng hn v theo
linh hot hn trong vic i ph vi cc c sc bn ngoi (Bigsten v cng s. 2000).
9.1 Cu thnh mng li kinh doanh ca doanh nghip
Thng tin c thu thp v cc kha cnh khc nhau ca mng li x hi ca
doanh nghip. Bng 9.1 trnh by hot ng mng li ca cc doanh nghip c o
lng l s lng ngi m doanh nghip lin h thng xuyn. Lin h thng xuyn
c nh ngha l ngi m doanh nghip tng tc hoc gp t nht 3 thng mt ln v
c doanh nghip cho l c ch i vi hot ng kinh doanh ca h. Trong nm 2011,
bnh qun mt doanh nghip c lin h thng xuyn vi 36 ngi so vi mc bnh
qun 41 ngi trong nm 2009. S lng ngi lin h tng ln cng vi quy m ca
doanh nghip, doanh nghip c a bn ti thnh th c s ngi lin h thng xuyn
nhiu hn. Ngc nhin l doanh nghip c ch s hu n trung bnh lin h vi nhiu
ngi hn, vi 41 ngi so vi con s 33 ngi ca doanh nghip c ch s hu nam.
Cc doanh nghip c yu cu chia nhng ngi doanh nghip lin h thng
- 94 -
xuyn thnh 5 nhm, trong 2 nhm c lin quan n cc doanh nghip khc c
xc nh l doanh nhn trong cng ngnh v doanh nhn khc ngnh. 3 nhm cn li c
lin quan n nhng ngi khng nht thit phi tham gia kinh doanh bao gm cn b
ngn hng, chnh tr gia v cng chc nh nc, v nhng i tng khc. Khng ph
thuc vo quy m, cc doanh nghip thng hay lin h vi doanh nhn khc ngnh
hn doanh nhn cng ngnh. Khng ngc nhin l cc doanh nghip ti khu vc thnh
th thng xuyn lin h vi cn b ngn hng, chnh tr gia v cng chc nh nc hn.
Khng phi tt c cc doanh nghip siu nh c lin h thng xuyn vi cn b ngn
hng, chnh tr gia v cng chc nh nc trong khi cc DNNVV bnh qun c lin h
thng xuyn vi 2 ngi trong nhm ny. S st gim tng s ngi lin h t nm
2009 n nm 2011 c quy cho s st gim lin h kinh doanh trong cng ngnh,
khc ngnh v trong nhm khc.
Bng 9.1 cng trnh by phn trm doanh nghip c t nht mt lin h trong tng
nhm. Mt doanh nghip c cc lin h trong nhiu nhm khc nhau c tip cn vi
thng tin nhiu loi khc nhau v do vy l mt li th so vi doanh nghip ch c lin
h trong mt vi nhm khc nhau (Burt, 1992). Theo Bng 9.1, cc doanh nghip ln
hn thng c lin h trong cc nhm khc nhau nhiu hn so vi cc doanh nghip
nh hn. V gii tnh ca ch s hu, cc doanh nghip c ch s hu n c tnh a
dng ha hn mt cht cc mi lin h ca h so vi cc doanh nghip c ch s hu
nam v do vy cc doanh nghip c ch s hu n c li th hn cc doanh nghip c
ch s hu nam v h c xu hng lin h vi nhng ngi t cc tng lp khc nhau
trong x hi nhiu hn. Tng t, cc doanh nghip ti thnh th, tnh bnh qun, c lin
h a dng hn so vi cc doanh nghip ti nng thn (cc doanh nghip thnh th, tnh
bnh qun, c 3,6 lin h khc nhau so vi con s 3,2 lin h khc nhau ca cc doanh
nghip ti nng thn). Tuy nhin ng lu l cc doanh nghip nng thng thng
lin h vi cn b ngn hng hn so vi cc doanh nghip thnh th: 50% lin h thng
xuyn ca cc doanh nghip nng thn l vi cn b ngn hng so vi 38% ca cc
doanh nghip thnh th. Hai gii thch c th c a ra y: (1) cc doanh nghip
nng thn thng c Giy chng nhn quyn s dng t v do vy h thng t gp
kh khn hn do thiu th chp, v (2) iu kin tn dng t ngt ngho hn ti cc vng
su vng xa, khng nh rng chnh ph Vit Nam n lc s dng Ngn hng Chnh
sch X hi nhm xa b bt bnh ng.
- 95 -
Bng 9.1 S lng ngi doanh nghip thng xuyn lin h
Quy m doanh nghip
Gii tnh
a bn
Siu
nh
Nam
Thnh
th
Tng s lin h
30,36 48,39 50,36
41,29
1.667 608
141
S lng lin h
trung bnh
Lin h kinh
doanh trong cng
ngnh
5.73
10,11 9,38
Nng
thn
Tng
s
2011
Tng
s
2009
33,02 50,89
24,92
36,07
40,89
891
1.525 1.037
1.379
2.416
2.475
7,78
6,61
10,03
4,80
7,04
11,00
Lin h kinh
19.75 29,46 30,59
doanh khc ngnh
26,09
20,92 31,28
16,47
22,83
20,15
Cn b ngn hng
0.77
1,75
2,19
1,31
0,98
1,36
0,91
1,10
1,33
Chnh tr gia v
cng chc nh
nc
0.98
1,75
1,91
1,33
1,17
1,64
0,92
1,23
1,89
Khc
3.13
5,32
6,29
4,77
3,33
6,58
1,82
3,86
6,52
Phn trm doanh nghip c t nht
1 lin h:
Lin h kinh
doanh trong cng
ngnh
Nh
Va
0,93
0,94
0,96
0,94
0,93
0,94
0,92
0,93
0,95
Lin h kinh
1,00
doanh khc ngnh
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
0,92
Cn b ngn hng
0,38
0,58
0,74
0,45
0,45
0,38
0,50
0,45
0,57
Chnh tr gia v
cng chc nh
nc
0,51
0,63
0,73
0,58
0,53
0,66
0,47
0,55
0,64
Khc
0,89
0,91
0,94
0,91
0,89
0,94
0,84
0,90
0,63
Ghi ch: Phn trm. S quan st c in m. C 11 v 19 quan st thiu v s lng lin h tng ng trong
nm 2011 v 2009. Tt c cc ct, tr ct cui, trnh by s liu thng k trung bnh cho nm 2011.
Bng 9.2 trnh by s lng lin h kinh doanh bnh qun theo 6 ngnh ln nht.
Ch c cc doanh nghip ch bin cao su c nhiu lin h hn so vi bnh qun chung
ca tt c cc ngnh. Cc doanh nghip sn xut g c t lin h nht. Cc doanh nghip
ny ch c mt na s lin h kinh doanh trong cc ngnh khc do vi cc doanh nghip
sn xut thc phm v ung v sn xut cao su.
- 96 -
Bng 9.2 S lng lin h bnh qun theo ngnh
ISIC(cp 4 s)
15 Thc phm v ung
20 Sn phm g
25 Sn phm cao su
26 Sn phm khong phi kim
28 Sn phm kim loi c
36 Ni tht
Tt c cc ngnh (bnh qun)
Lin
h kinh
doanh
cng
ngnh
5,18
5,01
8,11
6,37
7,00
5,34
7.04
Lin
h kinh
doanh
khc
ngnh
25,22
11,53
24,87
19,65
18,81
16,08
22,83
Cn b
ngn
hng
0,70
0,80
1,53
1,78
0,97
1,15
1,10
Chnh
tr gia
v cng
chc nh
nc
0,92
0,79
1,48
1,70
1,31
1,19
1,23
Tng
s
35.06
19.91
41.67
33.30
33.29
26.50
36,07
Khc
3,04
1,78
5,68
3,81
5,20
2,74
3,86
Bng 9.3 trnh by s pht trin nhn thc ca doanh nghip v nhm lin h kinh
doanh quan trng nht. Cc kt qu c bo co theo quy m doanh nghip, gii v
a bn. Trong c hai nm 2009 v 2011, cc lin h kinh doanh trong cc ngnh khc
nhau c coi l quan trng nht. ng lu l, t l ny tng 20 im phn trm
t 65% trong nm 2009 ln 85% trong nm 2011. S tng ln ch yu l do gim t l
doanh nghip cho rng lin h kinh doanh trong cng ngnh l nhm lin h quan trng
nht. Khng ngc nhin l cc doanh nghip va so vi cc cc doanh nghip nh hn
nhn thy rng lin h vi cn b ngn hng quan trng hn.
Bng 9.3 Nhm lin h kinh doanh quan trng nht
Lin h kinh
doanh cng
ngnh
Lin h kinh
doanh khc
ngnh
Cn b ngn
hng
Chnh tr gia
v cng chc
nh nc
2009
2011
2009
2011
2009
2011
2009
2011
2009 2011
Tng s
25,52
11,53
64,51
84,45
4,41
2,47
0,46
0,35
5,11
1,19
504
261
1.274
1.911
87
56
101
27
Siu nh
24,33
11,68
65,87
84,88
2,84
2,08
0,37
0,39
6,59
0,97
Nh
27,73
11,84
62,5
82,33
7,03
3,6
0,59
0,34
2,15
1,89
Va
29,13
8,63
58,27
88,49
10,24
2,16
0,79
0,0
1,57
0,72
24,42
11,36
66,57
84,69
4,65
2,27
0,0
0,24
4,36
1,44
Nam
26,11
11,63
63,4
84,3
4,27
2,59
0,7
0,42
5,52
1,05
Nng thn
23,88
10,82
64,41
85,36
3,88
2,86
0,44
0,56
7,4
0,4
Thnh th
27,74
12,43
64,64
83,3
5,12
1,99
0,48
0,1
2,02
2,19
Ghi ch: Phn trm. S quan st c in m. Khng y bin trong c hai nm.
- 97 -
Khc
Bng 9.4 trnh by t l tng s lin h c chia nhm thnh nhm cc nh cung
cp, khch hng, con n, ch n v ph n. Nu trong thc t, cc doanh nghip ch
da vo mng li ca h gim khng i xng thng tin bng vic h tr cc dng
thng tin v sn phm trc y, iu kin hin ti v can thip trong tng lai ca cc
i tc kinh doanh, con n v ch n, t l lin h trong tng nhm c th a ra thng
tin v tm quan trng hoc khng quan trng. Gn 30% doanh nghip khng c lin
h thng xuyn vi ngi trong nhm con n hoc ch n. iu ny c th c gii
thch bng cc quan st cho thy tn dng thng mi t quan trng hn ti Vit Nam so
vi nhiu quc gia chu Phi ni m tn dng thng mi l yu t quyt nh i vi
nng lc ca doanh nghip lm gim cc c sc khng lng trc. Gn 53% doanh
nghip cho bit hn 50% tng s lin h ca h l khch hng. Ph n chim gn 28%
tng s lin h bnh qun. T l thp hn lin h vi ph n c lin quan n nam gii
ch yu l do thc t rng ph n c tnh i din thp hn trong mi trng kinh doanh
ti Vit Nam.
Bng 9.4 T l lin h theo nhm
Bnh
qun
Khng
c lin
h
t hn
10%
T 1024%
T 2549%
Hn 50%
Cc nh cung cp
22,59
0,33
19,71
43,95
27,70
8,31
2.357
10
473
1.032
653
189
Khch hng
49,89
4,59
1,26
9,98
31,66
52,51
2.357
114
30
232
745
1.236
Con n
12,37
29,50
29,48
24,14
12,82
4,07
2.357
707
685
568
301
96
Ch n
12,37
29,50
29,48
24,14
12,82
4,07
2.357
707
685
568
301
96
Ph n
28,32
7,76
10,55
34,28
29,14
18,26
2.357
172
258
797
699
431
Ghi ch: Phn trm. S quan st c in m. Thiu 70 quan st.
Mt trong s nhng nguyn nhn m cc doanh nghip xy dng mi quan h

vi cc doanh nghip khc l tit kim cc chi ph giao dch bng cch gim chi ph
tm kim v sng lc i km vi vic tm nh cung cp mi (Kranton, 1996), c bit
trong cc mi trng ni th trng chnh thc khng c cc n v th ch iu hnh
(McMillan v Woodruff, 1999). Bng 9.3 cho thy phn ln cc DNNVV c th t do
- 98 -
tm nh cung cp mi trn th trng v bnh qun 39% xc nh nh cung cp thng

qua lin h c nhn. Con s ny so vi t l 50,5% doanh nghip xc nh nh cung
cp mi da trn qu trnh tm kim ring ca mnh. Cc doanh nghip thnh th v cc
doanh nghip nh hn da nhiu hn vo cc lin h c nhn xc nh cc nh cung
cp. Cc doanh nghip c ch s hu nam hoc n ph thuc nh nhau vo cc lin
h c nhn trong vic xc nh cc nh cung cp mi. Trong khi lin h c nhn c vai
tr quan trng qu trnh xc nh nh cung cp, kin thc c nhn v nh cung cp li
khng c vai tr quan trng. Do vy, di 2% doanh nghip cho bit tiu ch chnh cho
vic la chn nh cung cp l cc doanh nghip bit nh cung cp theo mi quan h c
nhn. ng hn, tiu ch chnh la chn nh cung cp l gi cnh tranh v tiu chun
cht lng vi t l 51% v 34% tng ng.
Bng 9.5 La chn nh cung cp
Tng
s
Siu
nh
Nh
Va
Nam
Nng
thn
Thnh
th
La chn t do cc nh
cung cp mi
97,86
98,09 97,71
95,74
97,77
97,91
96,98
99,04
2.375
1.674
612
141
895
1.532
1.389
1.038
Doanh nghip xc nh cc nh cung

cp bng cch no
- Lin h c nhn
39,17
41,65
34,51
29,63
39,24
39,12
37,70
41,09
- N lc marketing ca
cc nh cung cp
9,53
9,09
9,88
13,33
10,98
8,68
10,63
8,08
- Cc qu trnh t tm
kim
50,46
48,72
54,10
55,56
48,28
51,74
51,08
49,66
Cc tiu ch chnh la chn

nh cung cp
- Gi cnh tranh
50,80
50,95
51,17
47,41
50,40
51,04
46,64
56,23
- Tiu chun cht lng
33,78
33,58 34,11
34,81
34,02
33,65
35,82
31,13
- m bo cung ng
10,01
10,15
9,70
9,63
10,54
9,70
11,42
8,17
1,60
1,77
1,34
1,48
1,03
1,94
1,87
1,26
- Bit nh cung cp theo

mi quan h c nhn
Ghi ch: Phn trm. S quan st c in m. Thiu 3 quan st v cch thc xc nh nh cung cp v 7 quan st
v tiu ch chnh la chn nh cung cp.
- 99 -
9.2 Thnh vin ca hip hi doanh nghip

Trong khi chc nng chnh ca hip hi doanh nghip l cung cp cc dch v phi
ti chnh v i din cc li ch chung ca thnh vin, bng cch vn ng Chnh ph
cung cp hng ha cng, c ngi tranh lun rng cc hip hi ny c th gip doanh
nghip xy dng mng li ngh nghip v c nhn v hip hi m ra cc quan h c
nhn mi v do vy mang li c hi kinh doanh.
Bng 9.6 Thnh vin ca cc hip hi doanh nghip chnh thc
2009
2011
Tng s
9,83
7,58
245
184
Siu nh
3,83
2,93
Nh
19,36
14,71
Va
33,33
31,91
Nng
thn
9,72
7,34
Thnh
th
9,97
7,90
Tng s
1,30
1,36
239
184
Tng s
88,16
93,44
216
171
Thnh vin ca cc hip hi doanh nghip
S lng thnh vin bnh qun
Np ph thnh vin
Ghi ch: Phn trm. S quan st c in m.
Bng 9.6 cho thy t l doanh nghip tham gia vo cc hip hi doanh nghip gim
t gn 10% trong nm 2009 xung 7,6% trong nm 2011. S st gim ny c lp vi
quy m doanh nghip nhng cc doanh nghip nh v va c xu hng l thnh vin
cao hn ng k vi cc t l 15% v 32% tng ng. ng ngc nhin l, cc doanh
nghip ti thnh th v nng thng c t l l tham gia hip hi doanh nghip nh nhau.
Vic tham gia nhiu hn mt hip hi khng ph bin, ch c 39 doanh nghip cho bit
h l thnh vin ca nhiu hip hi. i vi cc hip hi quan trng nht, khong 93%
np ph hi vin trong nm 2011 so vi t l 88% trong nm 2009. V kh tm hiu bng
s liu hin c, s tng ln ny c th gip gii thch s st gim t l tham gia hip hi.
Chuyn sang cu hi nhng doanh nghip no tham gia hip hi doanh nghip
chnh thc, Bng 9.7 lit kt kt qu t m hnh probit tc ng tng hp v ngu nhin
- 100 -
cho nm 2009 v 2011. Cc yu t xc nh thng thng i km vi cc o lng v

hot ng mng li c a vo c hai c lng. Cc bin mng li i vi mt
s lin h trong cng v khc ngnh c xy dng da trn cc nhm sau: (1) di
5 i tc mng li; (2) trn 4 v di 10 i tc mng li, (3) trn 9 v di 20 i
tc mng li, v (4) hn 20 i tc mng li. Tng t, s lng lin h vi cn b
ngn hng, chnh tr gia v cng chc nh nc c xy dng da trn cc nhm sau:
(1) khng c quan h, (2) quan h kinh doanh, (3) 2 quan h kinh doanh, v (4) t nht
3 quan h18. S a dng ca cc mi quan h c xc nh l s lng cc nhm, trnh
by trong Bng 9.1 trong doanh nghip c t nht 1 lin h.
Bng 9.7 Cc yu t quyt nh l thnh vin ca hip hi kinh doanh
Mng li
Kinh doanh cng ngnh

Kinh doanh khc ngnh
Cn b ngn hng
Chnh tr gia v cng chc nh
nc
Lin h a dng
c im ca
doanh nghip Quy m doanh nghip (log)
Tui ca doanh nghip
H gia nh
Thnh th
c im ca Trnh hc vn ca ch s
ch s hu
hu
Kinh nghim ca ch s hu
Gii tnh
Bin gi
ngnh
Bin gi nm
S quan st
Pseudo R-squared
Kim tra ch s kh nng xy ra
Probit tng hp
Ch s
t-stat
-0,001
(-0,34)
-0,004
(-1,16)
0,005
(1,42)
Probit tc ng ngu
nhin
Ch s
t-stat
-0,008
(-0,16)
-0,033
(-0,73)
0,092*
(1,80)
0,011***
-0,002
(2,78)
(-0,40)
0,129**
-0,023
(2,41)
(-0,35)
0,038***
0,001***
-0,048***
-0,036***
(9,10)
(3,97)
(-3,82)
(-4,87)
0,538***
0,015***
-0,637***
-0,528***
(8,16)
(2,76)
(-4,05)
(-3,89)
0,018**
-0,009
0,005
(2,14)
(-1,29)
(0,70)
0,257*
-0,110
0,048
(1,93)
(-1,02)
(0,43)
C
C
3.740
77,44***
C
C
3.720
0,227
Ghi ch: Ct 1: Probit tng hp ch s dng s liu t nm 2009 v 2011. Ct 2: Tc ng ngu nhiu s dng s
liu t nm 2009 v nm 2011. Bin ph thuc l thnh vin ca hip hi kinh doanh. Sai s chun gp c trnh
by trong ngoc n. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. C s: Ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).
18 Cn lu rng cc ch tiu khc nhau v hot ng mng li c tng quan vi nhau nhng ch d dang nh vy.
iu ny cho php chng ti tm hiu xem liu c mt s ch tiu quan trng hn mt s ch tiu khc.
- 101 -
Tm tt kt qu chng ti thy ch c mt trong s 5 o lng v vn mng li x

hi c ngha thng k ln trong probit tng hp. Cc doanh nghip c lin h thng
xuyn vi chnh tr gia v cng chc nh nc c xc sut l thnh vin hip hi doanh
nghip cao hn. Tc ng vn c v tr nn ln hn khi chng ti iu chnh cc nhn
t khng c quan st tc ng n xc sut l thnh vin ca hip hi. Bn cnh ,
lin h vi cn b ngn hng tr nn ln mc 10% trong m hnh probit tc ng ngu
nhin. c tnh ch s dng cho thy lin h thng xuyn vi cn b ngn hng lm
tng xc sut l thnh vin hip hi. iu ny c th do thc t l cc doanh nghip ln
hn v trng thnh hn t b kh khn tn dng hn. Bng chng khng r rng c th
cho thy doanh nghip khng tham gia hip hi doanh nghip xy dng mng li
ngh nghip v c nhn v do vy cc thnh vin khng c nhiu lin h hn so vi cc
doanh nghip khng l thnh vin.
Th hai, theo cc c tn t ct (2), cc doanh nghip ln hn c hn 50% xc
sut tr thnh thnh vin cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip nh hn. Th ba, cc doanh
nghip lu i hn c t l l thnh vin hip hi doanh nghip cao hn. Th t, cc
doanh nghip thnh th v cc doanh nghip h gia nh c xu hng tham gia hip hi
doanh nghip cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip c hnh thc s hu khc khu vc
nng thn. Cui cng, ch s hu/ngi qun l t nht tt nghip trung hc ph thng
c t l ln hn ng k tham gia hip hi doanh nghip chnh thc 19.
Bng 9.8 H tr vn ng t hip hi doanh nghip
2009
Nhn c h tr vn ng
2011
Khng
Khng
56,73
37,14
62,84
37,16
139
91
115
68
- Tt
48,92
41,74
- Trung bnh
43,88
50,43
- Khng y
4,32
6,96
- Khng th tip cn
2,16
0,87
Cht lng h tr vn ng
19 Trnh hc vn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l c a vo nh bin gi nhn gi tr 1 nu ch s hu t nht tt

nghip trung hc ph thng.
- 102 -
Chc nng chnh ca hip hi doanh nghip l cung cp dch v phi ti chnh v
i din li ch chung ca thnh vin. Bng 9.8 trnh by s lng thnh vin nhn c
s h tr vn ng t cc hip hi kinh doanh m h l thnh vin. Trong nm 2011,
khong 115 doanh nghip tng ng 63% thnh vin nhn c s h tr ny so vi t
l 57% trong nm 2009. Bng 9.6 cng lit k cht lng ca s h tr. Khong 42%
doanh nghip trong nm 2011 cho bit cht lng h tr tt, 50% cho bit cht lng
trung bnh v ch c 7% cho rng cht lng h tr vn ng t hip hi kinh doanh l
khng y .
Cht lng h tr vn ng theo quy m doanh nghip v gii tnh c trnh by
trong Hnh 9.1 di y. Nhn chung, cc doanh nghip c ch s hu n hi lng hn
vi s h tr nhn c so v cc doanh nghip c ch s hu nam trong mt t l
ln nh gi cht lng l trung bnh. Cc doanh nghip ln hn ni chung hi lng
hn vi cht lng h tr nhn c so vi cc doanh nghip siu nh. Hn 60% doanh
nghip siu nh cho bit cht lng trung bnh v ch c mt t l nh cho bit h khng
th tip cn vi s h tr.
Hnh 9.1: Cht lng h tr vn ng
Tt
Trung bnh
Khng hiu qu
Khng tip cn
c
Bng 9.9 trnh by s phn b li ch theo nhn thc v li ch thc t ca doanh

nghip khi l thnh vin hip hi. Phn ln cc doanh nghip (25%) cho bit l do quan
trng nht tham gia hip hi l hip hi cung cp cc dch v lin quan n cc chnh
sch v lut mi ti doanh nghip. T ct (2) v li ch thc nhn c t vic l thnh
vin, khong 42% cho bit h nhn c thng tin v chnh sch v lut mi c lin
- 103 -
quan n doanh nghip. Gn 19% doanh nghip thnh vin cho bit cc dch v khu
vc t nhn nh hi ch thng mi v cc l do khc l l do quan trng nht tham
gia hip hi doanh nghip chnh thc. Cc doanh nghip thnh vin cng c hi v
dch v h tr h cn nht.
Theo ct (3) trong Bng 9.9, 24% doanh nghip cho bit dch v vn ng quan
trng nht h cn l dch v khu vc t nhn, trong khi 20% doanh nghip cho bit h
cn c cung cp cc khon vay u i. Thng tin sau ny c th ch cho thy cc
doanh nghip tham gia hip hi c t li th hn so vi cc doanh nghip khng tham
gia hip hi. Khng may l chng ti khng th kim tra c gi thuyt ny bng cch
s dng s liu hin c v v th kt qu cn phi c hiu mt cch thn trng.
Bng 9.9 Li ch theo nhn thc v thc t ca thnh vin hip hi
L do gia
nhp
Li ch thc
nhn c
Dch v
vn ng
cn nht
Tip cn t ai
1,64
2,61
7,27
Chi ph v thi gian bt u kinh doanh
8,20
6,09
3,03
o to lao ng
8,20
10,43
10,91
Thi gian v chi ph tun th quy nh
5,46
2,61
2,42
Chnh quyn gii quyt cc vn ca doanh

nghip
4,37
2,61
3,64
Dch v khu vc t nhn (hi ch thng mi,

v.v)
19,13
12,17
24,24
Cung cp chnh sch v lut mi cho doanh

nghip
24,59
41,74
10,30
Cung cp cc khon vay u i
5,46
7,83
20,00
Gim thu
3,28
2,61
8,48
Phn x kinh t
0,55
2,61
1,21
Khc
19,13
8,70
8,48
183
115
165
S quan st
- 104 -
9.3 Vai tr cc mi quan h i vi hot ng v tng trng ca doanh nghip

Hiu c vai tr ca mng li x hi trong trao i th trng l quan trng i
vi chnh sch, c bit l thit k cc th ch gip h tr th trng. hiu nhng
chc nng no cc th ch ny phi cung cp, vic kim tra vai tr ca cc mi quan
h trn th trng v cc knh khc nhau thng qua cc mi quan h ny h tr trao
i th trng l rt hu ch. Vi phm vi ny, chng ti iu tra xem cc doanh nghip
ch bin nh v va ti Vit Nam c lin kt cht ch c hot ng tt hn so vi cc
doanh nghip khng c lin kt cht ch.
Bng 9.10 trnh by cc c tnh hi quy bnh phng nh nht tng hp v hot
ng mng li i vi hot ng ca doanh nghip iu chnh theo c im ca
doanh nghip v ch s hu, a bn, c cu s hu php l v ngnh. Hot ng ca
doanh nghip c o lng l logarit gi tr gia tng thc. Gi tr gia tng l o lng
gi tr sn xut tr i cc chi ph trc tip v gi tr nguyn vt liu th. Trong ct 1,
hot ng mng li c o lng l tng s lng lin h, a dng hp ng v
thnh vin hip hi. Trong ct 2, tng s lin h c chia thnh 4 nhm: lin h kinh
doanh trong cng ngnh, khc ngnh, cn b ngn hng v chnh tr gia v cng chc
nh nc. Thnh vin hip hi cng c a vo v cc hip hi chnh thc c th l
ni c hiu qu thit lp cc mi quan h lm vic vi cc nh cung cp v khch
hng mi, c bit do s min cng ca ch s hu trong vic thay i cc mi quan
h ny khi c thit lp.
- 105 -
Bng 9.10 Hot ng mng li i vi hot ng ca doanh nghip
Ch s
t-stat
Ch s
t-stat
Mng li
Tng s lin h (log)
0,029
(1,61)
Kinh doanh trong cng ngnh
0,011
(0,90)
Kinh doanh khc ngnh
0,008
(0,81)
Cn b ngn hng
0,048***
(4,17)

nc
0,007
(0,59)
Lin h a dng
0,024**
(2,23)
0,000
(0,00)
Thnh vin hip hi
0,059
(1,39)
0,052
(1,23)
c im
doanh nghip
1,060***
(73,00)
1,053***
(72,21)
Tui ca doanh nghip
-0,005***
(-4,39)
-0,005***
(-4,44)
Thnh th
0,372***
(15,08)
0,392***
(15,37)
c im ca
ch s hu
Trnh hc vn ca ch s
hu
0,065***
(2,68)
0,061**
(2,50)
-0,001
(-0,02)
0,000
(0,02)
Hnh thc s
hu
T nhn/1 thnh vin
0,236***
(5,32)
0,237***
(5,36)
-0,070
(-0,97)
-0,071
(-0,99)
Cng ty TNHH
-0,070
(7,97)
0,304***
(7,86)
Cng ty c phn
0,310***
(2,11)
0,118*
(1,91)
Bin gi ngnh
Bin gi nm
S quan st
3.630
3.630
Pseudo R-squared
0,826
0,827
Ghi ch: Cc c tnh OLS tng hp da trn mu cn bng. Bin ph thuc: log gi tr gia tng. *,
**, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. C s: Doanh nghip h gia nh, ch bin thc
phm (ISIC 15). C hng s trong tt c cc hi quy.
Tm tt kt qu chng ti thy nh sau. Th nht, tng s lin h khng c ngha

thng k ln, c ngha l hot ng mng li cao hn khng lm tng hot ng ca
doanh nghip. Kt qu ny ngc li vi cc kt qu ca Fafchamps v Minten (2002),
iu tra cc doanh nghip ti Madagascar20. Tuy nhin, hot ng ca doanh nghip
c tng quan thun vi s lng lin h khc nhau m doanh nghip c (a dng ha
20 Kt qu ny cng ngc li vi cc kt qu theo kinh nghim ca Barr (2000). Barr kim tra vn x hi v mt
mng li doanh nghip xc nh hot ng ca cc doanh nghip ch bin Ghana.
- 106 -
mng li cao hn). Kt qu ny ph hp vi Burt (1992) khng nh tm quan trng

ca cc doanh nghip c cung cp thng tin tt hn so vi cc i th thng qua
tng tc vi cc mi lin h khc nhau. Cc kt qu chnh trong ct 2 cho thy lin h
vi cn b ngn hng c tng quan thun vi hot ng ca doanh nghip.
Th hai, quy m doanh nghip c xc nh l s lng lao ng ton b thi
gian c ngha thng k ln v tng quan thun vi hot ng, trong khi tui ca
doanh nghip c tng quan ngc vi hot ng cho thy hot ng tng ln theo tng
trng doanh nghip. Th ba, v c im s hu (vn con ngi), ch s hu/ngi
qun l t nht tt nghip trung hc ph thng c t l hot ng doanh nghip cao hn
so vi ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh hc vn thp hn21. iu ny dng nh do
cc ch s hu/ngi qun l c trnh hc vn tt hn c hiu bit tt hn v cc th
tc hnh chnh phc tp nh h thng tn dng v do vy c v tr tt hn thc y
kt qu kinh t v tng trng ca doanh nghip. Th t, doanh nghip t nhn/cng ty
TNHH mt thnh vin, cng ty TNHH v cng ty c phn c hot ng cao hn so vi
cc doanh nghip h gia nh. Cui cng, cc doanh nghip ti thnh th c hot ng
cao hn so v gi tr gia tng so vi cc doanh nghip khc ti nng thn.
Bng 9.11 trnh by c lng bnh phng nh nht v hot ng mng li i
vi tng trng ca doanh nghip c iu chnh theo c im ca doanh nghip v ch
s hu, a bn, c cu s hu php l v ngnh. Tng trng doanh nghip c o
lng bng s lng lao ng ton thi gian v doanh thu thc hng nm. Hot ng
mng li ca doanh nghip c c bng cch a tng s lin h m doanh nghip
thng xuyn lin h, a dng lin h, thnh vin ca hip hi kinh doanh.
21 Trnh hc vn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l c a vo nh bin gi nhn gi tr 1 nu ch s hu t nht

tt nghip trung hc ph thng.
- 107 -
Bng 9.11 Tc ng ca mi quan h mng li i vi tng trng

ca doanh nghip
Tng trng doanh

nghip (quy m)
Tng trng doanh

thu
Ch s
t-stat
Ch s
t-stat
Mng li
Tng s lin h (log)
-0,034
(-0,92)
-0,041*
(-1,81)
Lin h a dng
0,063***
(3,31)
-0,017
(-1,08)
Thnh vin hip hi
0,152*
(1,80)
0,039
(0,81)
c im doanh
nghip
-0,319***
(-7,31)
-0,092***
(-4,39)
Tui ca doanh nghip
-0,002
(-1,39)
0,000
(0,07)
H gia nh
-0,469***
(-4,23)
-0,102**
(-2,01)
Thnh th
0,147**
(2,24)
0,056
(1,62)
c im ca
ch s hu
Trnh hc vn ca ch
s hu
0,050
(1,21)
-0,015
(-0,47)
Kinh nghim ca ch s
hu
0,033
(0,65)
0,033
(1,07)
Gii tnh
0,053
(0,96)
-0,036
(-1,13)
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
1.910
1.818
Pseudo
R-squared
0,075
0,025
Ghi ch: Cc c tnh OLS tng hp da trn mu cn bng. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v
1%. C s: Ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15). C hng s trong tt c cc hi quy. Bin c lp t nm 2009.
Tm tt cc kt qu chng ti thy nh sau. Trc tin, hot ng mng li ca

doanh nghip c ngha thng k ln v quan h ngc gia tng s lin h v tng
trng doanh thu, cho thy hot ng mng li cao hn lm gim tng trng doanh
nghip. i vi hot ng ca doanh nghip, s a dng lin h lm tng tng trng
ca doanh nghip c o lng bng s lng lao ng ton thi gian. L thnh vin
ca hip hi kinh doanh chnh thc cng c tng quan thun vi tng doanh s ca
doanh nghip nhng ch c ngha thng k mc 10%. Tng quan thun gia vic
l thnh vin v tng trng doanh nghip cho thy s h tr vn ng do hip hi kinh
doanh mang li c li cho cc DNNVV v mt nng cao tng trng.
Th hai, quy m doanh nghip c xc nh bng s lng lao ng ton b thi
gian c ngha thng k ln v tng quan ngc vi tng trng doanh nghip. Do
- 108 -
vy doanh nghip nh hn c xu hng tng trng cao hn. Th ba, doanh nghip h
gia nh c mc tng trng thp hn so vi cc doanh nghip (thng) ln hn. Cui
cng, v mt tng trng vic lm, cc doanh nghip thnh th c tng trng nhanh
hn so vi cc doanh nghip nng thn.
Bng 9.12 Tng trng doanh nghip theo loi quan h mng li
Tng trng doanh
nghip (quy m)
Ch s
t-stat
Tng trng
doanh thu
Ch s
t-stat
0,006
-0,025
-0,022
(0,28)
(-1,30)
(-1,03)
-0,011
-0,037***
0,005
(-0,72)
(-2,60)
(0,35)
-0,013
0,080***
0,157*
(-0,49)
(2,84)
(1,88)
0,003
-0,024
0,038
(0,18)
(-1,21)
(0,79)
-0,318***
-0,003
-0,472***
0,137**
(-7,50)
(-1,50)
(-4,19)
(2,06)
-0,094***
-0,000
-0,100**
0,055
(-4,46)
(-0,07)
(-1,97)
(1,54)
0,051
(1,23)
-0,015
(-0,47)
0,029
0,050
C
1.910
(0,59)
(0,89)
0,030
-0,038
C
1.818
(0,95)
(-1,19)
0,076
0,025
Mng li
c im doanh
nghip
c im ch s
hu
Bin gi ngnh
S quan st
Pseudo
R-squared
Kinh doanh trong cng

ngnh
Kinh doanh khc ngnh
Cn b ngn hng
Chnh tr gia v cng chc
nh nc
Lin h a dng
Thnh vin hip hi
Nm thnh lp
H gia nh
Thnh th
Trnh hc vn ca ch
s hu
Kinh nghim ca ch s
hu
Gii tnh
Ghi ch: Cc c tnh OLS tng hp da trn mu cn bng. *, **, *** tng ng vi mc ngha 10%, 5% v
1%. C s: Ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15). C hng s trong tt c cc hi quy. Bin c lp t nm 2009.
Quan st cc loi hot ng mng li khc nhau c tc ng n tng trng

doanh nghip, Bng 9.12 chia hot ng mng li thnh s lng lin h v doanh
nghip c vi cc i tc trong cng ngnh, i tc khc ngnh, cn b ngn hng,
chnh tr gia v cng chc nh nc. Kt qu cho thy tc ng mng li i vi tng
trng doanh thu nh trnh by trong Bng 9.10 ch yu do s lng lin h vi doanh
nhn khc ngnh. V hi quy tng trng doanh nghip, c lng ch s v a dng
- 109 -
lin h v thnh vin hip hi vn c ngha thng k ln v tng t i vi cc c

lng c lin quan n c im ca doanh nghip22.
9.4 Ph bin thng tin v hot ng ci tin
Trong phn ny, chng ti s phn tch mt s knh tc ng ch yu, c th l ph
bin thng tin v hot ng ci tin. Ph hp vi l thuyt, gi thuyt chung trong ti
liu v ph bin thng tin trong nc l nhng i tng hc hi ln nhau v cng ngh
mi v ci tin (Fafchamps v Sderbom, 2011). Mt phng php thu thp c
thng tin v cng ngh mi, thit k v hnh thc sn xut l thng qua sn phm v
yu cu sn xut t khch hng v cc nh cung cp. Bng 9.13 cho thy 7,6% v 4,4%
doanh nghip nhn c yu cu c th v hnh thc sn xut hoc c tnh sn phm
t khch hng v cc nh cung cp. Vic nhn c yu cu sn xut trc tip tng ln
theo quy m doanh nghip. Trong s cc doanh nghip nhn c yu cu sn phm,
trung bnh hn 20% cho bit nhng yu cu ny dn n chuyn giao cng ngh. Do
vy, tng tc vi khch hng v cc nh cung cp c th h tr dng thng tin v mt
chuyn giao cng ngh, y mnh ci tin v tng trng ca doanh nghip.
Bng 9.13 Yu cu t khch hng v nh cung cp
Tng s
Siu nh
Nh
Va
Yu cu t khch hng
7,58
5,59
10,82
17,14
183
93
66
24
20,77
18,28
24,24
20,83
38
17
16
Yu cu t nh cung cp
4,39
3,48
5,25
11,43
106
58
32
16
22,64
20,69
21,88
31,25
24
12
Yu cu c dn n chuyn giao cng ngh?
Yu cu c dn n chuyn giao cng ngh?
Tuy nhin, thng tin v cc knh m thng qua doanh nghip c c thng tin
v cng ngh mi v hot ng ci tin rt hn ch v s liu. Tuy nhin, c th cho rng
s ph bin thng tin lm tng hot ng mng li ca doanh nghip. tng y
22 Ni chung, nhng kt qu ny c tin tng c hay khng ph thuc vo kh nng v chch ni sinh. Chng
ti c gng gim ti a chch ny bng cch a cc bin ph thuc vo t nm 2009. Kim tra ni sinh s dng
mu cn bng hoc c tnh IV nm ngoi phm vi ca bo co ny. Tuy nhin, cc kt qu c trnh by y
c th c xem l cc ch s ban u v tm quan trng ca mng li x hi trong cc th trng c chi ph giao
dch cao v th th th trng km.
- 110 -
l ch s hu doanh nghip nhn c t vn v nng cp cng ngh v ci tin doanh

nghip t cc i tc mng li, v do mng li ln hn v a dng hn lm tng
xc sut doanh nghip hc hi hot ng c hiu qu v nng lc do cc doanh nghip
khc chia s, kch thch s thnh vng v tng trng.
Bng 9.14 S ci tin ca doanh nghip
(1)
(2)
Ch s
t-stat
Ch s
t-stat
Mng li
Tng s lin h (log)
0,188***
(4,99)
Kinh doanh trong cng ngnh
0,010
(0,33)
Kinh doanh khc ngnh
0,020
(0,73)
Cn b ngn hng
0,046
(1,46)

nc
0,087***
(2,70)
a dng quan h
0,087***
(3,08)
0,045
(1,15)
Hip hi kinh doanh
0,077
(0,75)
0,070
(0,67)
c im
doanh nghip
0,256***
(7,70)
0,253***
(7,44)
Tui ca doanh nghip
-0,000
(-0,02)
-0,001
(-0,14)
c im ca
ch s hu
Trnh hc vn ca ch s
hu
0,222***
(3,77)
0,216***
(3,66)
0,046
(1,00)
0,058
(1,09)
Bin gi a im
Bin gi s hu
C bin gi ngnh
S quan st
2.416
2.416
Pseudo R-squared
0,107
0,105
Ghi ch: Probit theo yu cu. Bin ph thuc l ****. Sai s chun gp trong ngoc n. *, **, *** tng ng vi
mc ngha 10%, 5% v 1%. C s: Thnh ph H Ch Minh, Ch bin thc phm (ISIC 15).
Bng 9.14 trnh by c lng hi quy probit v mi quan h gia hot ng mng
li i vi s ci tin ca doanh nghip c iu chnh theo c im ca doanh
nghip v ch s hu, bao gm a bn, c cu s hu php l v ngnh. Bin ph thuc
i vi mc ci tin ph thuc vo cu tr li cho 3 cu hi: (1) Doanh nghip c
gii thiu sn phm mi khng? (2) Doanh nghip c ci tin sn phm hin ti khng?
v (3) Doanh nghip c gii thiu cng ngh mi khng? Ty theo s nhm trong
- 111 -
doanh nghip ci tin, mt bin m t 0 n 3 c xy dng v s dng nh bin

ph thuc. Ct (1) bao gm tng s lin h, mt bin gi i vi a dng lin h v mt
bin gi thnh vin, trong ct (2) chia tng lin h thnh cc nhm mng li
cp trc y (loi nhm khc).
Tm tt cc kt qu chng ti thy nh sau. Th nht, nh d kin, hot ng mng
li c tng quan thun vi s ci tin. Tng s lin h vo hot ng ci tin c tc
ng thun v c ngha thng k n mc ci tin ca doanh nghip. Quan st ct
(2) s a dng lin h khng c xc nh r na. c tnh ch s dng trong ct (1)
v tng s lin h dng nh c quyt nh bi lin h vi cn b ngn hng cng nh
chnh tr gia v cng chc nh nc (ct 2) vi tc ng thun chiu v c xc nh r
n tnh ci tin ca doanh nghip. Th hai, quy m doanh nghip c o lng bng
s lng lao ng ton b thi gian c tng quan thun vi tnh ci tin, cho thy cc
doanh nghip ln hn c xu hng ci tin hn so vi cc doanh nghip khc. Th ba,
ch s hu/ngi qun l t nht tt nghip trung hc ph thng c xu hng ci tin hn
so vi cc doanh nghip c ch s hu vi trnh hc vn thp hn.
Tm li, phn tch nh lng cho thy mng li c vai tr quyt nh quan trng
n ci tin v hot ng ca doanh nghip. Cc doanh nghip c nhiu lin h v lin
h a dng hn hot ng tt hn v tng trng nhanh hn. Bn cnh , cc nhm
quan trng nht theo tr li ca doanh nghip cng nh da trn phn tch nh lng
l cc mng li x hi vi doanh nhn trong cc ngnh khc v cn b ngn hng. Do
s lng lin h trong nhm cn b ngn hng tng ln cng vi quy m doanh nghip,
cc doanh nghip nh hn c th gp kh khn do thiu lin h vi cn b ngn hng.
V kha cnh ny, dng nh loi hnh mng li x hi ny qu t hoc n gin l
doanh nghip nh hn khng th tip cn c v do vy doanh nghip siu nh c tip
cn khng d tnh trc v khng bnh ng ti cc ngun lc. iu ny c khng
nh bng c tnh ch s dng c ngha thng k ln v quy m doanh nghip trong
tt c cc phn tch da trn kinh nghim tr hi quy tng trng.
- 112 -
10 Kt lun
Di y chng ti trnh by tm tt nhng kt qu quan trng nht t s liu v
bo co.
Gn 60% doanh nghip c iu tra cho bit khng hong ton cu vn c tc ng
tiu cc n cc iu kin kinh doanh ca h trong nm 2011 v ch c 17% doanh
nghip (vo cng thi im) nhn thy tc ng tiu cc ca cuc khng hong
2007/08 (c bo co trong nm 2009 hoc 2011). Nhn chung, t l doanh nghip
tin rng tc ng tiu cc ca khng hong ton cu 2007/08 s ch l tm thi ca
nm 2011 thp hn so vi nm 2009.
Nm 2009, cc doanh nghip quy m nh t b tc ng ca cuc khng hong hn so
vi cc doanh nghip c quy m ln hn. Bn cnh , t l doanh nghip nhn thy
b tc ng bi khng hong ton cu 2007/08 ca min Bc thp hn, trong khi cc
doanh nghip min Nam gp kh khn nhiu hn trong giai on t 2009 (64%) v
2011 (71%). Xu hng tng t cng xy ra khi phn tch theo tnh cht thnh th/
nng thn khi cc doanh nghip thnh th cm thy gp kh khn hn do cuc khng
hong ton cu trong nm 2011 so vi nm 2009 v cc doanh nghip nng thn cm
thy t kh khn hn trong cng thi k.
T l doanh nghip tn ti hng nm trong giai on 2009-2011 tng t 91,6% trong
giai on 2007-2009 ln 92,2%. Cc thnh ph ln nh H Ni v Thnh ph H Ch
Minh, t l doanh nghip thot khi th trng cao hn t l bnh qun. Lm ng
cng c t l cao hn t l bnh qun doanh nghip thot khi th trng. Bn cnh
cc doanh nghip c iu tra lp li c t l ny cao hn t l bnh qun thot
khi th trng. iu ny c th ch ra mt vi quan ngi v tnh cnh tranh i vi
khu vc ny.
Tng trng vic lm t nm 2009 n nm 2011 c bit ni bt ti tnh H Ty
(c), trong khi cc doanh nghip ti Ngh An c s gim st vic lm bnh qun.
Hn na, tng trng vic lm c bit cao trong ngnh sn xut da v cc ngnh c
s st gim vic lm l dt may v cao su.
Mi trng kinh doanh dng nh ci thin, mc d (tng t nm 2009) mt s
doanh nghip khng gp kh khn no. Tip cn vi tn dng (theo ch s hu doanh
nghip) vn l mt trong nhng vn ng quan tm nht mc d c s ci tin gia
nm 2009 v 2011. Tuy nhin, t l n chnh thc vn thp trong cc DNNVV Vit
Nam mc d vic tip cn cc ngun vn cho vay chnh thc tng ln.
Tng t nh nm 2009, cc doanh nghip c s chuyn dch ngy cng tng sang
khu vc chnh thc. Hn 20% s doanh nghip khng ng k chnh thc trong nm
2009 c giy php ng k kinh doanh (v m s thu) trong nm 2011. Bn cnh
- 113 -
, ngc li vi kt qu trong nm 2009, c bng chng v s chnh thc ha c tc

ng tch cc n tng trng vic lm. Nh vy Chnh ph nn tip tc theo ui
cc chnh sch chnh thc ha hin ti. Tuy nhin, khng c s khc bit ng k
gia cc doanh nghip c ng k v cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc i vi t l
doanh nghip sng st.
T l doanh nghip c cc khon chi ph phi chnh thc nm 2011 cao hn so vi
nm 2009 v cc kt qu cho thy tnh chnh thc v t l doanh nghip chi hi l
t l thun vi nhau. Mt nghin cu v mc ch ca cc khon chi ph phi chnh
thc l i ph vi thu v cc c quan thu cng nh tip cn cc dch v cng.
Cui cng, s liu nu bt rng cc doanh nghip hi l c xc sut thot khi th
trng cao hn. iu ny a ra mt thng ip mnh m n cc DNNVV rng
hi l khng lm cho doanh nghip tn ti trong di hn, tri ngc vi nhn thc
chung. C th cn phi c mt chin dch thng tin v cc c tnh tiu cc ni bt
ca chi hi l gim p lc chi phi ph chnh thc cho c phn cung v cu ca vn
ny.
DNNVV Vit Nam tng i chuyn mn ha v c t doanh nghip a dng ha
hn trong nm 2011 so vi nm 2009. Cc doanh nghip va 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 lm gim nguy c ca cc DNNVV ch bin Vit Nam. Tuy nhin, t
l doanh nghip pht trin sn phm mi trong nm 2011 cao hn so vi nm 2009,
trong s doanh nghip ci tin sn phm hin ti gim theo thi gian. c bit
cc doanh nghip nh nng thn chim t trng ln trong s st gim ny. Cc kt
qu cho thy s st gim ny c th l vn v s bin ng trong tng lai v s
ci tin thng bng ci tin sn phm hin ti c mi quan h thun vi hot ng
ca doanh nghip v cc chnh sch tng cng nn ch trng vo hot ng ci tin
nng lc ci tin ca cc DNNVV.
Nng sut lao ng nm 2011 tng ng k so vi nm 2009 v tng ch yu cc
doanh nghip nh v siu nh. Cc doanh nghip thnh th c mc nng sut lao
ng cao hn so vi cc doanh nghip nng thn. c bit ngnh thc phm v
ung c nng sut lao ng tng ng k trong giai on 2009-2011. Mc d t l
tng trng nng sut lao ng trung v cao hn 1 trong tt c cc ngnh cho thy s
ci tin ni chung v nng sut lao ng trong cc DNNVV Vit Nam. Tuy nhin, c
s bin ng ln gia cc doanh nghip; 40% doanh nghip c nng sut lao ng
m t nm 2009 n nm 2011. Cn c chnh sch tng cng tp trung vo nhm
cc doanh nghip c hot ng km ny nu Vit Nam theo ui m hnh pht trin
bn vng v ton din.
T l doanh nghip thc hin u t gim v c bit cc doanh nghip thnh th nh
- 114 -
hn ti min Nam chim ch yu trong s st gim ny. Khi lng u t bnh qun
t li nhun gi li tng so vi nm 2009 v 8,4% u t c ngun t cc khon vay
phi chnh thc. Mc d s st gim u t khng ln, cc chnh sch u t c th
c thit k gii quyt xu hng u t gim i km vi xu hng ngy cng
tng ca vic s dng tn dng phi hnh thc trong cc DNNVV ti khu vc thnh th
min Nam.
Gn 39% doanh nghip c th c coi l gp kh khn v tn dng. Con s ny tng
t nh t l quan st c trong nm 2009. S lng doanh nghip c cc khon vay
phi chnh thc nhiu gp i so vi cc doanh nghip c cc khon vay chnh thc,
v gn 90% cc doanh nghip c kh khn (ti th trng tn dng chnh thc) c
tip cn vi cc khon vay t ngun phi chnh thc. Nn nh rng cc khon vay phi
chnh thc ch chim 8-9% tng u t cho thy cc khon vay phi chnh thc tuy
nh nhng l mt cu thnh thng xuyn trong ch ti chnh ca cc DNNVV
Vit Nam. Cc doanh nghip h gia nh c xu hng vay tn dng phi chnh thc
thp hn, c ngha l cc doanh nghip chnh thc (khng c kh khn) cng da vo
ngun u t ti chnh phi chnh thc. Tuy nhin, cc chnh sch nn phn nh ngun
tn dng phi chnh thc khng th (v khng nn) m bo con ng tng trng
ton din do u t bn vng cho cc DNNVV.
K t nm 2009, c s tng ln t l lao ng thng xuyn trong lc lng lao ng
v s st gim tng ng trong t l lao ng khng thng xuyn. Khi nn kinh t
n nh v nim tin vo tng lao cao, cc doanh nghip c xu hng thu nhiu lao
ng thng xuyn v t lao ng khng thng xuyn hn. Do vy s liu cho thy
c s ph hi t khng hong kinh t ton cu v nhn chung lc quan hn.
Tng t nh nm 2009, cc DNNVV vn gp kh khn trong tuyn dng lao ng.
Do t l lao ng c trnh cao tng i cao nn dng nh nhng kh khn ny
l do thiu thng tin th trng lao ng hn l thiu lao ng c tay ngh. iu ny
xut cn phi tng cng h thng thng tin gip kt ni ngi lao ng vi
cc doanh nghip v kt ni k nng ca ngi lao ng vi yu cu cng vic.
Trnh hc vn cao ca ch s hu v ngi qun l c mi quan h t l thun vi
tng trng doanh nghip. Bn cnh , c ch s v trnhh hc vn trung bnh
cng c tng quan thun vi tng trng lao ng cng nh mc lng. Tuy nhin,
cn lu rng mc lng c nhn bnh qun bin ng ng k theo nhm vic lm
v trong tt c cc nhm vic lm, lng cho nam gii cao hn so vi n gii. V
quyn li ca ngi lao ng, nhng ngi c tuyn dng trong cc doanh nghip
ln hn c li ch tng i cao hn, th hin lng cao hn. Cui cng, tr vic
cho php ngh m c lng, tnh bnh qun, tt c cc hnh thc li ch khc ca
ngi lao ng u tng ln so vi nm 2009. Nh vy, cc s liu dng nh khng
- 115 -
nh rng hc vn v cc chnh sch tin lng tp trung vo quyn li ca ngi lao

ng bt u c tc dng, thm ch i vi cc DNNVV nh hn.
Hiu c vai tr ca cc mng li x hi trong trao i th trng c vai tr quan
trng i vi chnh sch, c bit l i vi thit k cc th ch h tr th trng.
Phn tch cho thy cc mng li l nhn t quyt nh quan trng s ci tin v hot
ng ca doanh nghip. Doanh nghip c nhiu lin h v lin h a dng hn c
thy l c hot ng tt hn v tng trng nhanh hn. Do cc lin h mng li
quan trng tng ln theo quy m doanh nghip, cc DNNVV nh hn c kh nng
thp hn tng i trong vic tn dng c li ch c lin quan n mng li. Cc
li ch khc nhau ca mng li x hi dng nh qu t hoc khng th tip
cn c i vi cc doanh nghip nh, do vy mang li s tip cn vi ngun lc
khng d tnh c v bt bnh ng cho cc doanh nghip siu nh. Cc chnh sch
nhm vo mc tiu m bo mt sn chi bnh ng trong mi tng quan vi tip
cn mng li x hi c th gip m bo vic theo ui tng trng ton din ca \
Chnh ph. Mi quan h thun chiu gia vic l thnh vin ca hip hi kinh doanh
v tng trng doanh nghip c th ch ra rng s h tr do hip hi kinh doanh a
ra c li i vi cc DNNVV, ci tin v y mnh vic tip cn ca phn on nh
hn ca cc DNNVV c th mang li li ch chung cho tt c cc doanh nghip ni
chung.
- 116 -
Ti liu tham kho

Amin, M. (2011), Nng sut lao ng, quy m doanh nghip v gii tnh: Trng
hp cc doanh nghip phi chnh thc ti Argentina v Peru, Ti liu s 22 ca nhm
doanh nghip Ngn hng th gii
Barr, A.M. (2000). Vn x hi v dng thng tin k thut ti khu vc ch bin
Ghana, ti liu kinh t Oxford, 52, 539-559.
Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B. v Lawrence, R. Z. (1995),Cc doanh nghip xut
khu, vic lm v lng trong khu vc ch bin Hoa K: 1976-1987, Ti liu v
hot ng kinh t. Kinh t vi m, trang. 67-119
Bigsten, A.P. v cng s (2000). Tnh linh hot ca hp ng v gii quyt tranh
chp ti khu vc ch bin Nam Phi, Tp ch nghin cu pht trin, 36(4), 1-37.
Brach, J., Newman, C., Rand, J. and Tarp, F. (2012), Tnh cnh tranh mc
doanh nghip v cng ngh ti Vit Nam: Kt qu iu tra nm 2010, CIEM
Burt, R. (1992). Cc l hng cu trc. C cu x hi ca s cnh tranh, Cambridge
MA, Tp ch i hc Harvard.
CIEM (2007) c im mi trng kinh doanh Vit Nam:Kt qu iu tra doanh
nghip nh v va nm 2005. Bo co CIEM, H Ni, c th ti t http://www.ciem.
org.vn/home/en/home/index.jsp
nghip nh v va nm 2007. Bo co CIEM, H Ni, c th ti t at http://www.
ciem.org.vn/home/en/home/index.jsp
nghip nh v va nm 2009. Bo co CIEM, H Ni, c th ti t http://www.ciem.
org.vn/home/en/home/index.jsp
Deng, Z., Hofman, P. and Newman, A. (2012), Tp trung ha s hu v ci tin
sn phm ti cc DNNVV t nhn Trung Quc, Tp ch qun l Chu Thi Bnh
Dng, sp n hnh.
DNEAP (2006) Pht trin doanh nghip ti Mozambique: Kt qu da trn iu tra
ch bin c thc hin nm 2002 v 2006.. Ti liu tranh lun 33E-2006 DNEAP,
c th ti t http://www.mpd.gov.mz/gest/publicat.htm
Fafchamps, M. (1992). Mng li thng nht ti cc x hi tin cng nghip: Nng
dn c l tr vi nn kinh t o c, Pht trin kinh t v thay i vn ha, 41(1),
147-174.
Fafchamps, M. v Minten, B. (2001). Quay tr li vn mng li x hi ca cc
doanh nghip, ti liu kinh t Oxford, 54, 173-206.
Fafchamps, M. v Sderbom, M. (2011). Tip cn mng li v hot ng kinh
doanh trong khu vc ch bin chu Phi, Ti liu hot ng CSAE
Fletschner, D. (2009), Tip cn tn dng ca ph n nng thn: Tnh khng hon ho
- 117 -
ca th trng v bin ng trong h gia nh, Pht trin th gii, 37(3), 618631.
Granovetter, M. (1995). C vic lm: Nghin cu v lin h v ngh nghip, phin
bn ln 2, Chicago v London: i hc bo ch Chicago.
Goedhuys, M. v Sleuwaegen, L. (2000), Doanh nghip v tng trng doanh
nghip ti b bin Ng, Tp ch nghin cu pht trin, 36(3), 123-145.
GSO (2004) Kt qu tng iu tra c s Vit Nam 2002: Tp 2 C s kinh doanh.
NXB Thng k, H Ni.
GSO (2007) Thc trng doanh nghip: Qua kt qu iu tra nm 2004, 2005, 2006.
NXB Thng k, H Ni.
Hansen, H., Rand, J. v Tarp, F. (2009): Tng trng v tn ti ca doanh nghip ti
Vit Nam: Chnh ph c h tr vn ny khng?, Tp ch nghin cu pht trin,
45(7), 1048-1069.
Hering, L. v Poncet, S. (2010), Tip cn th trng v lng c nhn: bng chng
t Trung Quc , Tp ch Kinh t v Thng k, thng 2/2010, 92(1), 145-159.
ILO (2010). Bo co lng ton cu 2010/11. T chc Lao ng Th gii: Geneva.
Jones, P. (2001), Ngi lao ng c o to c nng sut lao ng thc t cao
hn?, Tp ch nghin cu pht trin, S 64, Vn 1, trang 57-79,
Jovanovic, B. (1982). La chn v cch mng cng nghip. Econometrica 50(3),
649-670.
Kranton, R. (1996). Trao i ln nhau: H thng t bn vng, Tp ch kinh t Hoa
K, 86(4), 830-851.
Laplante, B. (2006). Kim im thc hin ngh nh 67/2003 v Ph bo v mi
trng i vi nc thi ti Vit Nam. D tho bo co trnh Chng trnh pht
trin Lin hip quc ngy 5 thng 5, 2006.
Larsen, A.F., Rand, J. v Torm, N. (2011). Mi quan h tuyn dng c tc ng n
lng khng? Phn tch s dng s liu tng hp ngi s dng lao ng-ngi lao
ng ca Vit Nam, Tp ch kinh t pht trin, 15(3), 541555.
Liedholm, C. v Mead, D.C. (1999). Doanh nghip nh v Pht trin kinh t. Vai tr
ca cc doanh nghip nh v siu nh., Nghin cu Routledge v Kinh t pht trin.
Routledge, London v New York.
Liu, A.Y.C. (2004), Nhng thay i v khong cch lng theo gii tnh ti Vit
Nam, Tp ch kinh t so snh, 32, 586596.
McMillan, J. v Woordruff, C. (1999). Mi quan h gia ccdoanh nghip v tn
dng phi chnh thc ti Vit Nam, Tp ch kinh t hng qu, 114(4), 1258-1320
Mengistae, T. (2006), Cnh tranh v vn con ngi ca cc doanh nghip trong s
tn ti v tng trng ca doanh nghip nh, Tp ch nghin cu pht trin, 42(5),
812-836.
Nichter, S. v Goldmark, L. (2009), Tng trng ca doanh nghip nh ti cc quc
- 118 -
gia ang pht trin, Pht trin th gii, 37(9), 14531464.

Putman, R. (1993). Thc hin cng tc dn ch: Truyn thng cng dn ti nc
hin i, Princeton NJ, Bo i hc Princeton.
Rand, J. (2007) Kh khn tn dng v cc nhn t quyt nh chi ph vn ti cc
doanh nghip ch bin Vit Nam, Kinh t kinh doanh nh, 29, 1-13.
Rand, J. v Tarp, F. (2011), Gii tnh c nh hng n vic cung cp li ch ngoi
lng? Kt qu t iu tra DNNVV Vit Nam, Kinh t ph n, 17(1), 59-87.
Rand, J. v Tarp, F. (2012), Tham nhng cp doanh nghip ti Vit Nam, Pht
trin Kinh t v Thay i Vn ha, 60(3), 571-595.
Rand, J. v Torm, N. (2012a), Li ch ca chnh thc ha: Kt qu t iu tra
DNNVV khu vc ch bin, Pht trin th gii, 40(5), 983998.
Rand, J. v Torm, N. (2012b), Khong cch lng khu vc phi chnh thc trong cc
siu nh Vit Nam, Ti liu hot ng, Khoa kinh t, i hc Copenhagen.
Segal, G., Borgia,D., v Schenfeld, J. (2009). Vn con ngi ca ngi sng lp v
hot ng ca doanh nghip nh: nghin cu kinh nghim v ca hng thc phm t
nhin do ngi sng lp qun l, Tp ch nghin cu qun l, 4, 1-10.
Sderbom, M., Teal, F. v Wambugu, A. (2005), Tnh khng ng nht cha quan
st c v mi quan h gia li nhun v quy m doanh nghip: Bng chng t hai
quc gia ang pht trin, Ti liu kinh t, 87, 15359.
Sutton, J. (2005), Cnh tranh v nng lc: Tng quan phi chnh thc, Da trn bi
ging Clarendon ca tc gi nm 2004, i hc Kinh t London.
Torm, N. (2011), Khong cch lng ni chung trong cc DNNVV Vit Nam, Ti
liu hot ng, Khoa kinh t, i hc Copenhagen.
Vu, V.H. (2012), Tham gia xut khu c tc ng n lng v cht lng vic lm?
Trng hp cc DNNVV Vit Nam, Khoa Kinh t, i hc Waikato
Ngn hng th gii (IFC) (2012), Ph n, kinh doanh v lut php, Ngn hng th
gii.
- 119 -
characteristics of the vietnamese

business environment:
evidence from a sme survey in 2011
CIEM, DoE, ILSSA and UNU-WIDER

November 2012
characrteristics of the vietnamese business environment
Table of Contents
1
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
3.1
3.2
4
4.1
4.2
5
5.1
5.2
6
6.1
6.2
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10
List of Tables ......................................................................................................... 124

List of Figures ....................................................................................................... 127
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................ 128
Preface.................................................................................................................... 129
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... 130
Introduction............................................................................................................ 131
Data Description and Sampling............................................................................. 135
Sampling................................................................................................................ 135
Implementation...................................................................................................... 144
Links to Previous Surveys...................................................................................... 145
Enterprise Growth and Dynamics.......................................................................... 147
Employment Growth.............................................................................................. 147
Firm Exit................................................................................................................ 152
Bureaucracy, Informality, and Informal Payments................................................. 156
Informality, Growth and Exit................................................................................. 156
Taxes and Informal Costs....................................................................................... 158
Diversification, Innovation and Labor Productivity............................................... 162
Diversification and Innovation............................................................................... 162
Labor Productivity Characteristics......................................................................... 166
Investment and Access to Finance......................................................................... 170
Investments............................................................................................................ 170
Credit...................................................................................................................... 174
Employment........................................................................................................... 178
Workforce Structure and Stability.......................................................................... 178
Education, Training, Workplace Conditions and Hiring Methods......................... 181
Trade Unions.......................................................................................................... 187
Wage Setting, Social Benefits and Contracts......................................................... 192
Firm Capabilities.................................................................................................... 200
Owner Characteristics............................................................................................ 200
Firm Performance and Survival............................................................................. 205
Investment, Innovation and Technology Adoption................................................ 209
Education Level of Workforce............................................................................... 213
Labor Productivity................................................................................................. 215
Social Networks..................................................................................................... 218
Composition of Firms Business Network............................................................. 218
Membership in Business Associations................................................................... 223
The role of relationships on firm performance and growth.................................... 228
Diffusion of Information and Innovative Practices................................................ 233
Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 236
- 123 -
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Did the International Crisis Negatively Affect the Firms Doing Business
Conditions?.................................................................................................. 131
Table 1.2 Crisis Transition Matrix............................................................................... 132
Table 1.3 International Crisis by Location and Firm Size........................................... 132
Table 1.4 Recent International Crisis Brought Positive Opportunities for

Doing Business............................................................................................ 133
Table 1.5 Opportunity Transition Matrix..................................................................... 133
Table 2.1 Overview of the population of non-state manufacturing enterprises....... 135
Table 2.2 Number of Enterprises Interviewed............................................................. 137
Table 2.3 Number of Interviewed Enterprises by Province and Legal Structure........ 138
Table 2.4 Number of Enterprises by Location and Sector........................................... 139
Table 2.5 Number of Enterprises by Size and Location.............................................. 140
Table 2.6 Number of Enterprises by Ownership Form and Sector.............................. 142
Table 2.7 Number of Enterprises by Legal Ownership and Size................................. 143
Table 2.8 Number of Enterprises by Sector and Size.................................................. 144
Table 2.9 Survival Overview....................................................................................... 146
Table 3.1 Mean Employment Statistics by Firm Size................................................. 147
Table 3.2 Employment Transition Matrix.................................................................... 148
Table 3.3 Employment Growth by Province, Legal Structure and Size...................... 149
Table 3.4 Employment Growth by Sector................................................................... 150
Table 3.5 Employment Growth Determinants............................................................. 151
Table 3.6 Exit Probabilities by Location, Legal Ownership and Size......................... 152
Table 3.7 Exit Probabilities by Sector......................................................................... 153
Table 3.8 Exit Determinants........................................................................................ 155
Table 3.9 Temporary Closure in 2009 and Exit in 2011.............................................. 155
Table 4.1 Formality Summary Statistics...................................................................... 156
Table 4.2 Formality Transition Matrices..................................................................... 157
Table 4.3 Firm Dynamics and Formality..................................................................... 157
Table 4.4 Net-to-Gross Profit Share............................................................................ 158
Table 4.5 How Many Enterprises Pay Bribes?............................................................ 159
Table 4.6 How Many Enterprises Pay Bribes?............................................................ 159
Table 4.7 Bribe Determinants: The Usual Suspects.................................................... 161
Table 4.8 Bribe Determinants: The Usual Suspects.................................................... 161
Table 5.1 Diversification and Innovation Rates (percent)........................................... 162
Table 5.2 Diversification and Innovation, by Sector................................................... 163
Table 5.3 Diversification and Innovation Transition Matrices.................................... 164
Table 5.4 Diversification and Innovation Characteristics............................................ 165
Table 5.5 Diversification, Innovation and Firm Dynamics......................................... 166
- 124 -
Table 5.6
Table 5.7
Table 5.8
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
Table 7.8
Table 7.9
Table 7.10
Table 7.11
Table 7.12
Table 7.13
Table 7.14
Table 7.15
Table 7.16
Table 7.17
Table 7.18
Table 8.1

Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 8.4
Table 8.5
Table 8.6
Table 8.7
Table 8.8
Table 8.9
Table 8.10
Table 9.1
Labor Productivity by Firm Size and Location........................................... 167

Labor Productivity by Sector....................................................................... 168
Labor Productivity Characteristics.............................................................. 168
New Investments......................................................................................... 170
Investment Persistence (Investment Transition Matrix).............................. 171
Investment Characteristics........................................................................... 172
Investment financing, by firm size and location.......................................... 173
Access to Credit........................................................................................... 174
Informal Loans and Credit Constraints........................................................ 175
Credit Access Characteristics...................................................................... 176
Labor Force Composition (percent of total workforce)............................... 179
Labor Force Composition by Occupation (percent of total workforce)...... 179
Occupation Transition Matrix...................................................................... 180
Stability of Workforce................................................................................. 181
Hiring Difficulties........................................................................................ 182
Recruitment Methods................................................................................... 183
Recruitment Methods by Sector.................................................................. 184
Measures to Ensure that Employees Work Hard Enough............................ 185
Training of Workforce................................................................................. 186
Education Attainment.................................................................................. 187
Share of Firms Having a Local Trade Union and Its Members................... 188
Workers Receiving Social Benefits.............................................................. 190
Transition Firms (%).................................................................................... 191
Wage Determinants...................................................................................... 194
Main Wage Determinants............................................................................ 196
Main Wage Determinants by sector............................................................. 196
Social Benefits (%)...................................................................................... 197
Duration of Formal Contracts (percent of workers).................................... 199
Basic education and work experience of owner/manager by firm size
and location.................................................................................................. 202
Basic education of owner/manager by sector and household firm.............. 204
Capabilities, Firm Growth and Survival...................................................... 207
Capabilities and Employee Growth............................................................. 208
New Investments (since last survey)........................................................... 210
Innovation and Owners/Managers Education and Experience................. 211
Education of Workers by Owner/Manager Education................................. 214
Social Benefits by Owner/Manager Characteristics.................................... 214
Labor Productivity by Owner/Manager Characteristics.............................. 216
Labor Productivity Regression.................................................................... 217
Number of people with whom the firm has regular contact........................ 219
- 125 -
Table 9.2
Table 9.3
Table 9.4
Table 9.5
Table 9.6
Table 9.7
Table 9.8
Table 9.9
Table 9.10
Table 9.11
Table 9.12
Table 9.13
Table 9.14
Average number of contacts by sector......................................................... 221

Most important group of business contacts................................................. 221
Share of Contacts by Group......................................................................... 222
Selection of Suppliers.................................................................................. 223
Membership in Formal Business Associations............................................ 224
Determinants of Membership in Business Associations.............................. 225
Advocacy Support from Business Associations.......................................... 226
Perceived and actual benefits from membership......................................... 228
Network activity on firm performance........................................................ 229
Network relations effect on firm growth...................................................... 231
Firm growth by type of network relations................................................... 232
Requirements from customers and suppliers............................................... 233
Firm Innovativeness................................................................................. 234
- 126 -
List of Figures
Figure 4.1
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 7.1
Figure 7.2
Figure 7.3
Figure 7.4
Figure 7.5
Figure 8.1
Figure 8.2
Figure 8.3
Figure 9.1
What is the Bribe Payment Used For?........................................................ 160

How Was the Investment Financed?........................................................... 173
Why Dont Enterprises Apply for Loans?.................................................. 175
Trade Union Chairman............................................................................... 192
Average Monthly Wage (in 1,000 VND).................................................... 192
Average Monthly Real Wage (in 1,000 VND)............................................ 193
Social Benefits, by Gender of Owner/Manager.......................................... 198
Formal Contracts, by Gender of owner/Manager....................................... 199
Basic Education of Owner/Manager by Gender (%).................................. 203
Basic Education of Owner/Manager by Formal/Informal (%)................... 204
How Was the Adaption Carried Out........................................................... 212
Quality of advocacy support....................................................................... 227
- 127 -
Acronyms and Abbreviations

BRC
Business Registration Certificate
BSPS
Business Sector Programme Support
CIEM
Central Institute for Economic Management
CPI Consumer Price Index

EC
Environmental Certificate
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
HCMC
Ho Chi Minh City
ILSSA
Institute for Labour Science and Social Affairs
ISIC
International Standard Industrial Classification
LURC
Land Use Right Certificate
GSO
General Statistics Office
HH
Household
LURC
Land Use Right Certificate
Mn
Million
MONRE
Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment
MPI
Ministry of Planning and Investment
Number of Observations
OLS
Ordinary Least Squares
SD
Standard Deviation
SME
Small and Medium sized Enterprise
USD
United States Dollar
VHLSS
Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey
VND
Vietnamese Dong
- 128 -
Preface
This report represents the seventh 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, and 2009 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 2011. The survey on which the present report is based builds on these previous
three rounds. The fieldwork behind this report consisted of in-depth interviews during the
months of June, July and August of 2011 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 who were also interviewed in 2005, 2007 and 2009. 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 analyzing 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 2011
database, comparing as appropriate with data from 2009. 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.
1 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.
- 129 -
Acknowledgements
The team of authors behind the present report is grateful to the President of CIEM,
Dr. Le Xuan Ba 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, who served as UNUWIDER external project director. The team also included Ms Marie Skibsted and
Ms Benedikte Bjerge from the DoE. Dr. 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. Nguyen Thi
Lan Huong and her staff including Mr. Le Ngu Binh, Ms. Le Huong Quynh, and Mr.
Luu Quang Tuan. 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 2011 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.
- 130 -
1 Introduction
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) continue to be central to the Vietnamese
development process. Understanding the constraints facing small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) and the potential of these firms therefore remains important, as the private
sector in Vietnam continues to account for an increasing share of economic growth and
employment. Post crisis 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 2011 survey is
especially important for an analysis of how persistent the impact of the international
financial crisis has been on Vietnamese SMEs.
Based on direct questions on the perceived effects (by owners and managers) of
the international crisis we see from Table 1.1 that 65.4 percent of the firms interviewed
in 2009 reported that the international crisis had a negative effect on the firms doing
business conditions. This number only declined to 61.7 percent in the 2011. Considering
only the balanced panel does not change the result.
Table 1.1 Did the International Crisis Negatively Affect
the Firms Doing Business Conditions?
Obs.
Percent Yes
Full sample
2009
(2,508)
65.4
2011
(2,449)
61.7
Balanced panel
2009
(1,999)
64.3
2011
(1,999)
62.6
Table 1.1 suggests that almost the same share of firms have been affected by the
2008 international crisis. However, looking at a crisis transition matrix (Table 1.2)
reveals that 53.8 percent of the firms answering No to having experienced doing
business problems due to the 2008 international crisis in the 2009 survey, reported in
2011 to have been affected by the crisis. On the other hand, 32.5 percent of the firms
- 131 -
stating that the crisis had an effect on their doing business conditions in 2009, reported
in the 2011 survey that the initial negative effects of the crisis is no longer affecting
the firm significantly. Table 1.2 also shows that only 330 out of 1999 enterprises (16.5
percent) report in both surveys not to have been affected by the crisis.
Table 1.2 Crisis Transition Matrix
Crisis No 2011
Crisis No 2009
Crisis Yes 2011
Total
Percent
330
384
714
(46.2)
(53.8)
(100.0)
418
867
1285
(32.5)
(67.5)
(100.0)
Total
748
1251
1999
(100.0)
Percent
(37.4)
(62.6)
(100.0)
Crisis Yes 2009
(35.7)
(64.3)
Note: Percentage in parenthesis.
Table 1.3 shows that urban firms and enterprises in the south have been more exposed
to the 2008 international crisis (as perceived by the owners and managers). Differences
in perceptions between firms in the north and south are only observed in the 2011 survey.
Moreover, household firms have been less exposed to the crisis than their more formal
counterparts. Along the same dimension we do however see a slight decrease in the
number of small and medium firms feeling affected by the crisis over time.
Table 1.3 International Crisis by Location and Firm Size
Year
2009
2011
All firms
64.3
62.6
Urban
69.8
73.8
Rural
60.6
54.9
South
64.5
70.5
North
64.2
57.4
Micro
56.9
56.3
Small
78.0
75.9
Medium
85.7
81.2
Note: Balanced panel (1,999 observations each year)
- 132 -
In 2009 around 12 percent of enterprises believed that the crisis created some
opportunities for the firm, and it was especially more well-established larger firms that
are able to reap the potential benefits. However, in 2011 (as reported in Table 1.4) only
5.6 percent of firms believe that the international crisis has brought positive incentives
to firms doing business conditions.
Table 1.4 Recent International Crisis Brought Positive Opportunities
for Doing Business
Obs.
Percent Yes
Full sample
2009
(2,508)
11.8
2011
(2,449)
5.6
Balanced
panel
2009
(1,999)
12.2
2011
(1,999)
5.6
Finally, the opportunity transition matrix in Table 1.5 reveals that only 17 out
of 1999 firms consistently report that they believe that the international crisis have
provided positive opportunities for the firm. As in 2009, these few firms feel that the
positive effect comes through the availability of cheaper inputs, less competition and
increases in government support.
Table 1.5 Opportunity Transition Matrix
Opportunity No 2009
Opportunity No
2011
Opportunity Yes
2011
Total
Percent
1,662
94
1,756
(94.6)
(5.4)
(100.0)
226
17
243
(93.0)
(7.0)
(100.0)
Total
1,888
111
1,999
(100.0)
Percent
(94.4)
(5.6)
(100.0)
Opportunity Yes 2009
- 133 -
(87.8)
(12.2)
These results show that the majority of SMEs have the perception that the
international crisis have had a significantly negatively impact on their doing business
conditions. However, these conclusions are based on perceptions of the enterprises
surveyed. And while one should not doubt the validity of their responses, analyzing
whether these perceived effects of the international crisis are confirmed by in the firm
dynamics patterns (survival/exit and growth) remains a central part of this report.
- 134 -
2 Data Description and Sampling

2.1 Sampling
The previous SME surveys in 2005, 2007 and 2009 included a comprehensive
survey of between 2,500 and 2,800 enterprises in the same 10 provinces, where surviving
firms were re-interviewed each survey year (tracer survey). The sampling procedure in
2009 followed that of 2005, 2007 and 2009. The population of non-state manufacturing
enterprises in the 10 selected provinces is based on two data sources from the General
Statistics Office of Vietnam (GSO): The Establishment Census from 2002 (GSO, 2004)
and the Industrial Survey 2004-2006 (GSO, 2007). From the Establishment Census
we obtain the number of individual business establishments that do not satisfy the
conditions stated in the Enterprise Law of Vietnam. In the following we refer to this
category of enterprises as household enterprises. We combine this information with
data on enterprises formally registered under the Enterprise Law at the province level
from the Industrial Survey. This provides us with additional information on private,
collectives, partnerships, private limited enterprises and joint stock enterprises. Joint
ventures have been excluded from the sampling framework due to the high nature of
government and foreign involvement (often unclear) in such ownership structures.
Table 2.1 Overview of the population of non-state manufacturing enterprises
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay*
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa*
Lam Dong
HCMC
Long An
Sample total
Partnership/ Limited
Household Private/sole
Joint stock
Collective/ liability
establishment proprietorship
company
Cooperative company
16,588
17,042
23,890
12,811
22,695
10,509
5,603
5,268
34,241
8,050
156,697
1,194
65
100
206
125
51
119
75
2,052
83
4,068
217
12
18
38
23
9
22
14
374
15
741
1,793
97
150
309
187
76
178
112
3,080
124
6,107
397
22
33
69
41
17
39
25
683
27
1,354
Source: The Real Situation of Enterprises (GSO, 2007) and Results of Establishment Census of
Vietnam (GSO, 2004). Note: Includes only non-state manufacturing enterprises. Data for joint
ventures are excluded. Figures for Ha Tay has been downwards adjusted and Khanh Hoa upwards
adjusted after a series of consultations with both central and local government officials
- 135 -
The 2005 population of non-state manufacturing firms upon which the initial
sample was drawn is depicted in Table 2.1. The selected provinces therefore cover around
30 percent of the manufacturing enterprises in Vietnam. However, as highlighted in the
previous reports, we adjust GSO data for Khanh Hoa and Ha Tay. Checking the official
data for Khanh Hoa with the GSO resulted in an upward adjustment in the number of
registered household enterprises for the year 2002.2 Moreover, in the official statistics, Ha
Tay accounts for around 10 percent of total manufacturing enterprises in Vietnam. This
does not seem plausible. We have therefore adjusted downward the number of household
enterprises in Ha Tay by taking an average of the household manufacturing enterprises in
the neighboring provinces of Ha Noi. This leads to a total of 23,890 household enterprises,
which is used as the household enterprise population for Ha Tay.
The 2011 sample is drawn from the same population identified for the in 2005, 2007
and 2009 surveys (CIEM, 2007, 2009, 2011). However, the tracer survey feature of the
data will to some extend capture legal structure changes as incumbent firms graduate
to become formal entities. Moreover, exit firms were randomly replaced based on the
following two criteria: (i) a constant level of household firms based on the information
in GSO (2004) and (ii) the new 2011 population of firms registered under the Enterprise
Law obtained from the GSO (not yet published).
2 Around 0.8 per cent of nationwide household manufacturing enterprises are located in Khanh Hoa according to
the GSO. Given that the total number of household manufacturing enterprises is 700,309 in the economy, the total
number of household manufacturing enterprises in Khanh Hoa has therefore been upward adjusted to a total of
5,603 household enterprises (from 4,777).
- 136 -
Table 2.2 Number of Enterprises Interviewed
Interviewed in 2011
Interviewed in 2009
Ha Noi
270
279
Phu Tho
252
257
Ha Tay
340
371
Hai Phong
205
208
Nghe An
349
352
Quang Nam
158
151
Khanh Hoa
97
93
Lam Dong
78
67
HCMC
574
603
Long An
126
127
2,449
2,508
Total
Note: The balanced panel includes 1,999 firm observations each year.
It should be noted that the SME survey data includes both registered and nonregistered (informal) household firms. These informal household firms (without a
business registration license or tax code and not registered with District authorities)
were also included in the surveys based on on-site identification. Thus, all of the
informal firms included in the survey operate alongside officially registered enterprises.
Including some firms not registered with the authorities is an important contribution
and quite unique in Vietnam. Nevertheless, it is important to note that our sample of
informal firms is not representative of the informal sector as a whole in Vietnam, since
the sampling scheme of the SME survey is based on the GSO business censuses and
surveys which cover only part of the informal sector.
The 2011 sampling strategy followed that of 2005, 2007 and 2009 (see CIEM, 2007,
2009 and 2011 for details). Table 2.2 shows that 2,449 enterprises were interviewed.
Some enterprises report that they are not in manufacturing (4 in agriculture and 17 in
services) even though official records have them listed as producers of manufacturing
goods. For comparison, column 2 in Table 2.2 shows the number of enterprises
interviewed in the 2009 survey in each province. Panel data information on 1,999 firms
is available for analysis.
In all areas the samples were stratified by ownership forms to ensure the inclusion
- 137 -
of all non-state types of enterprises, including household, private, partnership/collective,

limited liability companies and joint stock enterprises. Table 2.3 documents the number
of non-state manufacturing enterprises interviewed in each ownership form category.
Only 66 percent of the interviewed enterprises are household enterprises as compared
to 90 percent in the firm population documented above. This means that non-household
enterprises are over-represented in the survey.
Table 2.3 Number of Interviewed Enterprises by Province and Legal Structure
Household
enterprises
Private/sole
proprietorship
Partnership/
Collective/
Cooperative
Limited
liability
company
Joint
stock
company
Total
Ha Noi
93
30
21
101
25
270
Phu Tho
218
17
252
Ha Tay
281
42
340
Hai Phong
104
20
18
41
22
205
Nghe An
274
18
33
19
349
Quang Nam
124
20
158
Khanh Hoa
61
15
19
97
Lam Dong
59
12
78
HCMC
285
62
11
204
12
574
Long An
90
21
14
126
196
66
503
95
2,449
Sample total 1,589
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 organization. Tables 2.3 to 2.8
show different tabulations of typical determinants of enterprise dynamics.
- 138 -
- 139 -
Agriculture
Food products and
beverages
Textiles
Wearing apparel etc.
Tanning and dressing
leather
Wood and wood products
Paper and paper products
Publishing, printing etc.
Refined petroleum etc.
Chemical products etc.
Rubber and plastic
products
Non-metallic mineral
products
Basic metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery (incl. office +
electrical)
Vehicles etc.
Transport equipment
Furniture etc.
Recycling
Services
(11.0)
13
4
1
17
0
1
270
9
12
55
30
5
5
11
15
1
8
53
7
22
Ha Noi
(10.3)
1
0
0
28
0
0
252
13
0
46
0
39
10
0
1
3
103
7
0
Phu
Tho
0
(13.9)
6
1
1
36
1
1
340
15
1
23
3
101
0
3
0
1
91
53
1
Ha Tay
Note: Number of firms (group percentages in parenthesis).
Percent
29-32
34
35
36
37
SER
Total
26
27
28
25
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
17
18
ISIC
codes
AGR
(8.4)
5
0
3
17
2
3
205
13
8
54
11
9
6
7
1
0
45
5
7
Hai
Phong
2
(14.3)
4
2
0
38
0
3
349
22
5
69
0
47
3
0
1
3
135
2
14
Nghe
An
0
(6.5)
3
0
0
19
0
2
158
8
1
38
6
15
0
0
0
0
58
0
6
(4.0)
1
0
0
10
0
1
97
5
2
16
2
9
5
1
0
1
40
0
2
Quang Khanh
Nam
Hoa
0
0
(3.2)
0
0
0
6
0
2
78
4
1
18
2
3
0
2
0
2
35
3
0
Lam
Dong
0
Table 2.4 Number of Enterprises by Location and Sector
(23.4)
37
10
3
19
3
2
574
15
3
88
65
18
11
31
28
1
20
126
26
67
HCMC
(5.1)
4
0
0
4
0
2
126
12
2
25
2
10
0
4
2
0
51
1
3
Long
An
0
(100.0)
74
17
8
194
6
17
2,449
116
35
432
114
49
249
66
60
7
38
737
104
122
Total
(3.0)
(0.7)
(0.3)
(7.9)
(0.2)
(0.7)
(100.0)
(4.7)
(1.4)
(17.6)
(4.7)
(2.0)
(10.2)
(2.7)
(2.4)
(0.3)
(1.6)
(30.1)
(4.2)
(5.0)
Percent
(0.2)
Table 2.4 focuses on the location sector split. Sector codes are based on the
International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) codes. First, we see that the
three largest sectors in terms of number of enterprises are Food Processing (ISIC 15),
Fabricated Metal Products (ISIC 28) and Manufacturing of Wood Products (ISIC 20).
These sectors were also the dominating ones in the 2009 SME survey. Moreover, this
corresponds well with the observed sector distribution reported in GSO (2004, 2007).
Table 2.5 Number of Enterprises by Size and Location
Micro
Small
Medium
Total
Percent
131
113
26
270
(11.0)
(48.5)
(41.9)
(9.6)
(100.0)
221
23
252
(87.7)
(9.1)
(3.2)
(100.0)
234
99
340
(68.8)
(29.1)
(2.1)
(100.0)
128
58
19
205
(62.4)
(28.3)
(9.3)
(100.0)
286
49
14
349
(81.9)
(14.0)
(4.0)
(100.0)
135
18
158
(85.4)
(11.4)
(3.2)
(100.0)
66
23
97
(68.0)
(23.7)
(8.2)
(100.0)
63
11
78
(80.8)
(14.1)
(5.1)
(100.0)
320
204
50
574
(55.7)
(35.5)
(8.7)
(100.0)
104
19
126
(5.1)
(82.5)
(15.1)
(2.4)
(100.0)
Total
1688
617
144
2,449
(100.0)
Percent
(68.9)
(25.2)
(5.9)
(100.0)
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
HCMC
Long An
(10.3)
(13.9)
(8.4)
(14.3)
(6.5)
(4.0)
(3.2)
(23.4)
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; Large: 300 employees and above (World Bank definition).
- 140 -
Table 2.5 documents the location-size tabulation.3 We see that two-third of the
sample is in the micro firm category with 1-9 employees. Moreover, enterprises in
larger urban areas (Ha Noi and HCMC) have a smaller share of micro enterprises than
rural provinces.
Table 2.6 shows, as mentioned earlier, that 67 percent of enterprises in our sample
are categorized as Household Enterprises. An above average percentage of firms in
the Food Processing category are registered as household establishments (82 percent).
The same can be said for firms in Wood Processing (ISIC 20) and Recycling (ISIC 37).
On the contrary, firms in Wearing Apparel (ISIC 18), Paper (ISIC 21), Publishing and
Printing (ISIC 22), Chemicals (ISIC 24), Rubber (ISIC 25), Basic Metals (ISIC 27) and
all machinery categories (ISIC 29-35) are more often found in the category of small and
medium firms.
According to Table 2.7, some 63 percent of medium firms are registered as
Limited Liability Companies, as compared to 44 and 8 percent in small and micro firms,
respectively. Moreover, 84 percent of all micro firms are household establishments,
which is worth noting when discussing the possible growth contribution effects of a
general transition from informal firm structures (most often household establishments)
to more formal entities (see Rand and Torm (2012) and Rand and Tarp (2012) for
further discussion of this issue). Only 33 percent of the Joint Stock firms are found in
the medium firm category, and almost 14 percent with this legal structure are found in
the micro category.
3 Our definition of a micro, small, medium and large scale enterprise follows current World Bank and Vietnamese
Government definitions. The World Bank SME Department operates with three groups of small and medium-sized
enterprises: micro-, small-, and medium-scale enterprises. Micro-enterprises have up to 10 employees, small-scale
enterprises up to 50 employees, and medium-sized enterprises up to 300 employees. These definitions are broadly
accepted by the Vietnamese Government (see Government decree no. 90/2001/CP-ND on Supporting for Development of Small and Medium Enterprises). Our size categories are based on the number of full-time, part-time
and casual workers.
- 141 -
- 142 -
Food products and beverages
Textiles
Tanning and dressing leather
Rubber and plastic products
Non-metallic mineral products
Basic metals
Machinery (incl. office + electrical)
Vehicles etc.
Transport equipment
Furniture etc.
Recycling
Services
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2932
34
35
36
37
SER
Total
(64.9)
1,589
134
24
296
16
67
40
20
11
196
33
56
62
601
Household
establishment
Note: Number of firms (group percentages in parenthesis).
Percent
Agriculture
AGR
ISIC
(8.0)
196
15
36
10
13
11
14
18
37
Private/sole
proprietorship
(2.7)
66
11
10
Partnership/
Collective/
Cooperative
(20.5)
503
29
10
40
76
20
46
18
25
34
22
47
32
80
Limited
liability
company
(3.9)
95
11
13
10
15
Joint stock
company
Table 2.6: Number of Enterprises by Ownership Form and Sector
(100.0)
2,449
17
194
17
74
432
35
116
114
38
60
66
249
49
122
104
737
Total
(100.0)
(0.7)
(0.2)
(7.9)
(0.3)
(0.7)
(3.0)
(17.6)
(1.4)
(4.7)
(4.7)
(1.6)
(0.3)
(2.4)
(2.7)
(10.2)
(2.0)
(5.0)
(4.2)
(30.1)
(0.2)
Percent
Table 2.7 Number of Enterprises by Legal Ownership and Size
Micro
Small
Medium
Total
Percent
Household establishment
1,426
162
1,589
(64.9)
Private/sole proprietorship
92
91
13
196
(8.0)
Partnership/Collective/
Cooperative
18
40
66
(2.7)
Limited liability company
139
273
91
503
(20.5)
Joint stock company
13
51
31
95
(3.9)
Total
1,688
617
144
2,449
(100.0)
Percent
(68.9)
(25.2)
(5.9)
(100.0)
Finally, Table 2.8 shows that in terms of enterprise size, there is large variation
across sectors. In the Food Processing sector, for example, around 84 percent of the
enterprises are micro enterprises, whereas only 29 percent of enterprises in Paper
Product sector (ISIC 21) are micro enterprises. Over 50 percent of firms in chemicals
(ISIC 24) are found in the small category.
- 143 -
Table 2.8 Number of Enterprises by Sector and Size

ISIC
Micro
Small
Medium
Total
Percent
AGR
Agriculture
(0.2)
15
616
96
25
737
(30.1)
17
Textiles
56
40
104
(4.2)
18
62
41
19
122
(5.0)
19
32
10
49
(2.0)
20
188
57
249
(10.2)
21
19
32
15
66
(2.7)
22
37
22
60
(2.4)
23
(0.3)
24
14
22
38
(1.6)
25
50
53
11
114
(4.7)
26
63
40
13
116
(4.7)
27
Basic metals
17
15
35
(1.4)
28
342
78
12
432
(17.6)
29-32
Machinery (incl office + electrical)
29
36
74
(3.0)
34
Vehicles etc.
17
(0.7)
35
Transport equipment
(0.3)
36
Furniture etc.
129
56
194
(7.9)
37
Recycling
(0.2)
SER
Services
11
17
(0.7)
Total
1,688
617
144
2,449
(100.0)
Percent
(68.9)
(25.2)
(5.9)
(100.0)
Note: Figures in number of firm (group percentages in parenthesis).
2.2. Implementation
For reasons of implementation, the survey was confined to specific areas in each
province/city. Subsequently, the sample was drawn randomly from a list of enterprises
based on the population of non-state manufacturing firms outlined in Table 2.1, where
the stratified sampling procedure was used to ensure the inclusion of an 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
- 144 -
firms substituted for the pre-selected 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 spring of 2011. This provided an occasion to identify and clear out
remaining ambiguities and possible sources of misinterpretation. As enumerators had
considerable prior experience, the training course in effect took the form of a joint
discussion and yielded much valuable feedback.
The enterprise survey was carried out by ten survey teams. The interviewers
included researchers from ILSSA, staff from different departments of MOLISA and ten
representatives from DOLISA. Each team was composed of one team leader (supervisor)
and several interviewers. The number of interviewers in each team depended on the
size of the sample in each area. The actual survey was undertaken in two stages. In
the first stage, enumerators went to the survey areas to identify the repeat enterprises
and to obtain the complete list of enterprises from the local authorities. In some cases
enterprises had changed location or owner since the last survey in 2009, and determining
whether the enterprises were still in existence often involved considerable work. Based
on these visits, updated lists of the repeat enterprises were prepared and random samples
of the new enterprises were drawn. The second stage of the survey was launched in the
autumn of 2011 and lasted for three months. In this stage, implementation of the survey
questionnaire was carried out through personal visits and direct interviews. Initial
checking and cleaning of the data was undertaken in the field. Following data entry, a
second round of data cleaning was undertaken and the 2011 data were merged with data
files from the 2009 to check consistency.
2.3 Links to Previous Surveys
In Table 2.9 we document the survival rate of the previously surveyed firms. Some
1,999 enterprises were tracked down and accepted to participate in survey, leaving 355
enterprises as confirmed exit enterprises. Some 154 enterprises (30 percent of potential
exits) were lost during the sampling or when approached declined to answer the
questionnaire. They are therefore excluded in both the 2009 and 2011 data. Using this
information, an annual survival rate between 2009 and 2011 of 92.2 percent is derived,
representing a small increase from the figure of 91.6 percent observed between 2007
- 145 -
and 2009, a level comparable to the 9 to 10 percent average exit rate cited by Liedholm
and Mead (1999) for a number of developing countries.
Table 2.9 Survival Overview
Surveyed in 2009
2009
2011
Survivors
2,354
(2,508)
1,999
Exit confirmed
Survival rate
355
Annual survival rate

New entrants
84.9
92.2
Total surveyed in 2011
450
2,449
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 70
percent (355 out of 509) are confirmed exits.
In the following sections, we concentrate on the 2011 survey. However, in some

cases we link the information back to the 2009 survey in order to follow enterprise
development.
- 146 -
3 Enterprise Growth and Dynamics

Given that the international crisis and the business environment appear to have
worsened from the enterprise point of view, it is interesting to explore the factors
driving dynamic changes in the SME sector and its component parts. We therefore turn
attention to enterprise dynamics, focusing in particular on: (i) employment growth and
(ii) firm exit.
3.1 Employment Growth
Table 3.1 documents the mean and median estimates of the number of full-time
regular employees in 2009 and 2011 respectively, by firm size. Moreover, the table
also documents the share of firms decreasing or increasing the number of full-time
employees between 2009 and 2011. First, the total number of full-time workers employed
by the 1,999 SMEs declined from 28,174 in 2009 to 26,414 in 2011, corresponding to
a decrease in total employment of 6.2 percent over the 2 year period. This decline is
also reflected in the decline in the average number of employees from 14.1 in 2009 to
13.2 in 2011. It is especially the amount of small and medium enterprises reducing the
number of full-time employees that drives the decline (even though the reported mean
employment for medium firms increased between 2009 and 2011). Approximately 60
percent of the small and medium firms reduced their permanent workforce.
Table 3.1 Mean Employment Statistics by Firm Size
All
All
Size
Micro
Small
Medium
2009
2011
Balanced
Mean Median
14.1
5.0
(1,999)
4.0
3.0
(1,344)
20.1
17.0
(522)
93.0
80.0
(133)
Balanced
Mean Median
13.2
5.0
(1,999)
3.8
3.0
(1,388)
19.7
17.0
(489)
94.3
73.0
(122)
Change from 2009 to 2011

Share of firms decreasing/
increasing employment
Decrease Constant Increase
42.4
27,2
30,5
(847)
(543)
(609)
33.6
35,8
30,6
(452)
(481)
(411)
59.8
10,9
29,3
(312)
(57)
(153)
62.4
3,8
33,8
(83)
(5)
(45)
Note: Number of full-time regular employees. (Observations in parenthesis). The 1,999 firms in the balanced panel
employed 28,174 full-time regular workers in 2009 as compared to 26,414 in 2011 (equal to a 6.2 percent decrease
in total employment over the 2 year period considered).
- 147 -
Table 3.1 highlights that individual firm sizes change significantly 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 3.2 gives employment
transitions for micro-, small- and medium enterprises from 2009 to 2011. The data
presented indicate quite clearly that micro enterprises with 1 to 9 employees have
tended to stay small, with some 93 percent of the enterprises in this category in 2009
remaining there in 2011. Moreover, as in 2009 those enterprises which did increase in size
graduated to the small category only. Looking at the small and medium enterprise
categories, there is a strong support for the conclusion reached above that these firms
have a tendency to move downwards in the size distribution over time. Employment
transition figures are in general quite similar to those reported in CIEM (2009) for the
2007-2009 period, although a larger share of firms declined in employment size within
the larger firm categories.
Table 3.2 Employment Transition Matrix
Micro 11
Small 11
Medium 11
Total
Percent
Micro 09
1,255
86
1,344
(67.2)
(93.4)
(6.4)
(0.2)
(100.0)
131
362
29
522
(25.1)
(69.3)
(5.6)
(100.0)
41
90
133
(1.5)
(30.8)
(67.7)
(100.0)
Total
1,388
489
122
1,999
(100.0)
Percent
(69.4)
(24.5)
(6.1)
(100.0)
Small 09
Medium 09
(26.1)
(6.7)
Table 3.3 shows average annual employment growth rates (defined as the square
root of the number of full-time regular employees in 2011 divided by that in 2009) by
province, legal ownership form and firm size. First, we see that the mean employment
growth rate is on average zero per year between 2009 and 2011, which is a significant
difference from the positive rates observed between 2005 - 2007 and 2007 2009
(see CIEM 2007 and 2009 for details). Second, employment generation in private
manufacturing differs across provinces. Especially SMEs in the areas of Ha Noi, Nghe
An, HCMC and Long An seem to have downward adjusted the number of full-time
workers in their enterprises. Contrary the SMEs sampled in Hai Phong and Ha Tay (Ha
Noi) have on average expanded their workforce.
- 148 -
On average, household enterprises experienced growth comparable to the sample

average. Both sole proprietorships and limited liability firms experienced a drop in
average employment, with a yearly negative growth rate of on average 1.1 percent in the
2009-2011 period. Contrary to this, partnerships and joint stock companies on average
expanded employment in the same period. There is also an indication of the inverse
relationship between firm size and employment growth in the data. Micro firms grew on
average by 3.3 percent (significantly less growth than in in 2005-2007 and 2007-2009)
as compared to -5.7 and -10.5 percent in small and medium enterprises, respectively.
All in all, these figures suggest that the international crisis is having employment effects
on especially small and medium SMEs in the 10 provinces considered. Compared with
the results of the last report (CIEM, 2011) this suggests that the negative employment
effects of the crisis have taken some time to materialize.
Table 3.3 Employment Growth by Province, Legal Structure and Size
All
Province
Legal
Size
All
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
HCMC
Long An
Private/sole
proprietorship
Partnership/ Collective/
Cooperative
Limited liability
company
Joint stock company
Micro
Small
Medium
Obs
1,999
210
214
306
169
304
128
88
43
431
106
1,356
148
58
376
61
1,344
522
133
Mean
1.000
0.954
0.994
1.055
1.051
0.968
1.008
1.016
1.029
0.988
0.977
1.001
SD
0.318
0.263
0.228
0.385
0.378
0.260
0.277
0.202
0.334
0.380
0.218
0.290
Median
1.000
0.960
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.939
1.000
1.000
0.986
0.293
1.000
1.084
0.557
1.000
0.985
1.047
1.033
0.943
0.895
0.362
0.374
0.327
0.294
0.260
0.962
1.000
1.000
0.913
0.939
Note: The mean yearly growth rate (unweighted) is defined as (regular full-time employment 2011/regular fulltime employment 2009)^
- 149 -
Table 3.4 shows employment growth summary statistics by sector. Growth rates
vary between sectors. Especially manufacturing of leather (ISIC 19) is expanding
significantly in terms of employees. Shrinking sectors between 2009 and 2011 are
especially textiles (ISIC 17) and rubber (ISIC 25) with an average employment decline
of 3.8 and 4.3 percent, respectively.
Table 3.4 Employment Growth by Sector
Obs
Mean
SD
Median
15
602
1.002
0.305
1.000
17
Textiles
94
0.962
0.336
1.000
18
64
0.977
0.346
0.923
19
39
1.162
0.541
1.000
20
249
1.028
0.398
1.000
21
50
0.969
0.271
0.966
22
50
0.962
0.238
0.974
24
32
0.970
0.307
1.000
25
106
0.957
0.298
0.956
26
102
0.997
0.351
1.000
27
Basic metals
30
1.062
0.328
1.000
28
351
0.984
0.263
1.000
2932
Machinery (incl. office +

electrical)
56
1.030
0.249
1.000
34
Vehicles etc.
17
1.003
0.220
0.961
36
Furniture etc.
139
1.019
0.299
1.000
Note: See Table 3.3 for details. We excluded sectors with under 10 observations.
Table 3.5 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. In column 1, we do not include sector controls,
whereas column 2 includes 19 sector dummies in the specification.
- 150 -
Table 3.5 Employment Growth Determinants
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
Cooperative
Limited liability
company
Joint stock company

Sector dummies included
Observation
R-squared
Without sector controls
With sector controls
Coefficient
t-stats
Coefficient t-stats
-0.169***
-0.253***
-0.044*
-0.020
0.060**
0.023
-0.051**
-0.022
0.003
0.012
-0.045
(-6.81)
(-6.83)
(-1.67)
(-0.82)
(2.14)
(0.69)
(-2.07)
(-0.71)
(0.09)
(0.22)
(-1.59)
-0.180***
-0.268***
-0.040
-0.021
0.059*
0.015
-0.056**
-0.039
-0.005
0.002
-0.050
(-7.18)
(-7.06)
(-1.49)
(-0.77)
(1.92)
(0.42)
(-2.04)
(-1.13)
(-0.17)
(0.04)
(-1.61)
0.089***
(3.24)
0.096***
(3.33)
0.210***
(2.78)
0.218***
(2.90)
0.121***
0.206***
No
1,999
0.06
(4.04)
(4.10)
0.130***
0.206***
Yes
1,999
0.08
(3.99)
(4.07)
Note: OLS - Dependent variable: Annual employee growth. Robust standard errors. *, **, *** indicates significance
at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: Micro, HCMC, Household firm, Food processing (ISIC 15).
First, Table 3.5 shows that the traditional inverse relationship between employment
growth and size is statistically well-determined in both estimations. We see that
controlling for location, legal structure and sector, micro firms have experienced 18
and 27 percent higher annual growth in full-time regular workers than their small and
medium counterparts. Second, Ha Tay stands out in terms of employment generation.
As compared with HCMC, Ha Tay had 6 percent higher annual employment growth.
Third, as in the previous survey, household firms contribute less to the employment
generation in private manufacturing.4 However, we see that the traditional determinants
explain only 4 to 6 percent of the variation in employment growth rates. In the following
4 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.
- 151 -
sections we therefore seek additional indications and explanations for the observed
development and dynamics of Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises.
3.2 Firm Exit
We continue by analyzing how these same traditional determinants affect firm exit
probabilities. Table 3.6 shows exit probabilities by location, legal ownership and firm
size categories. Of the 2,508 firms observed in 2009, approximately 20 percent had
closed their business by 2011. This translates to the yearly exit rate of 9.7 percent, which
is somewhat higher than observed between 2007 and 2009. However, it should be noted
that these exit percentages are not based on confirmed exit data. As shown in Chapter
2, relying on confirmed exits only reduces the annual exit rate to 7.8 percent. Urban
centers like Ha Noi and HCMC experienced above average exit rates, but also firms
in Lam Dong had a higher than average exit probability. On the other hand, especially
firms in Khanh Hoa exhibit low exit probabilities. This is generally a confirmation of
the firm exit probabilities observed in previous surveys.
Table 3.6 Exit Probabilities by Location, Legal Ownership and Size
All
Province
Legal
Size
All
Ha Noi
Phu Tho
Ha Tay
Hai Phong
Nghe An
Quang Nam
Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong
HCMC
Long An
Partnership/ Collective/ Cooperative
Joint stock company
Micro
Small
Medium
Note: Mean estimates of exit probability (unweighted).
- 152 -
Obs.
2,508
279
257
371
208
352
151
93
67
603
127
1,672
197
71
486
82
1,682
664
162
Mean
0.203
0.247
0.167
0.175
0.188
0.136
0.152
0.054
0.358
0.285
0.165
0.189
0.249
0.183
0.226
0.256
0.201
0.214
0.179
SD
0.402
0.432
0.374
0.381
0.391
0.344
0.361
0.227
0.483
0.452
0.373
0.392
0.433
0.390
0.419
0.439
0.401
0.410
0.385
Looking at legal status we see that household firms and partnerships are less likely
to exit than other legal ownership types. Moreover, looking at firm size we observe that
medium firms are less likely to exit than their micro and small counterparts.
Table 3.7 documents some variation in exit probabilities by sector. Not considering
sectors with few observations, firms in apparel (ISIC 18) manufacturing have a higher
exit risk, whereas firms engaged in basic metals (ISIC 27) have been less likely to exit.
All of these results are captured in the first column of Table 3.8, showing the results of
a probit estimation for determining exit characteristics in Vietnamese manufacturing
using the correlates of location, ownership form, sector and size.
Table 3.7 Exit Probabilities by Sector
Obs
Mean
SD
All
2,508
0.203
0.402
15
732
0.178
0.382
16
Tobacco
0.333
0.577
17
Textiles
122
0.230
0.422
18
103
0.379
0.487
19
47
0.170
0.380
20
301
0.173
0.379
21
69
0.275
0.450
22
74
0.324
0.471
23
10
0.200
0.422
24
40
0.200
0.405
25
138
0.232
0.424
26
135
0.244
0.431
27
Basic metals
35
0.143
0.355
28
428
0.180
0.385
29-32
Machinery (incl office + electrical)
70
0.200
0.403
34
Vehicles etc.
24
0.292
0.464
35
Transport equipment
0.000
0.000
36
Furniture etc.
167
0.168
0.375
37
Recycling
0.667
0.577
Note: Mean estimates of exit probability (unweighted).
- 153 -
First, we find the usual negative relationship between firm size and probability
of exit. Small and medium firms are 5 to 10 percent less likely to exit than their micro
counterparts. Second, there is a higher probability that exit firms are found in larger
urban areas (Ha Noi and HCMC), where the competitive pressure is higher. However,
exit probabilities are also relatively high in Lam Dong. Third, sole proprietorships and
joint stock firms are more likely to exit (controlling for size). Finally (not reported), as
compared to the base sector (food processing), exits are more likely to be found in the
apparel (ISIC 18) and non-metallic mineral products (ISIC 26) sectors, when controlling
for size, location and legal structure. However, note again that these traditional
determinants explain only around four percent of the variation in exit probabilities.
One of the crisis coping strategies of firms observed in 2009, was a significant
increase in the number of temporary closures (temporarily closed for at least a year
in the period 2007 to 2009). Almost 400 firms reported in 2009 that they temporarily
closed down due to the crisis. This number was significantly reduced in 2011 (only 17
firms in total), and is now down to the level observed before the crisis. However, what
happened to the firms closing temporarily? Are they still operating or have they shut?
Table 3.9 shows that the probability of exit is significantly higher among firms that were
temporarily closed in between 2007 and 2009. These firms are predominately micro and
small firms.
- 154 -
Table 3.8 Exit Determinants
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
Cooperative
Limited liability
company
Joint stock company

Observation
Pseudo R-squared
Exit (without sector)

Marginal
t-stat
effects
-0.043**
-1.98
-0.084**
-2.46
-0.035
-1.32
-0.095***
-3.58
-0.089***
-3.75
-0.082***
-2.89
-0.125***
-5.36
-0.108***
-3.48
-0.178***
-4.98
0.055
1.12
-0.097***
-2.90
Exit (with sector)

Marginal
t-stat
effects
-0.055**
-2.46
-0.097***
-2.92
-0.027
-1.00
-0.089***
-3.21
-0.083***
-3.17
-0.073**
-2.46
-0.117***
-4.71
-0.097***
-2.94
-0.171***
-4.61
0.073
1.43
-0.084**
-2.38
0.067**
1.96
0.059*
1.70
0.015
0.28
0.005
0.09
0.043
0.133**
No
2,508
0.03
1.62
2.38
0.036
0.133**
Yes
2,508
0.04
1.33
2.35
Note: Probit, marginal effects. Robust standard errors. *, **, *** indicates significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level,
respectively. Base: HCMC, Household firm, Food processing (ISIC 15).
However, previously temporarily closed firms which survived for the 2011
interview have significantly higher employment growth than firms operating throughout
the international crisis. Firms temporarily closed but surviving experienced five percent
higher employment growth between 2009 and 2011 compared to firms operating
throughout the international crisis (not reported).
Table 3.9 Temporary Closure in 2009 and Exit in 2011
Temporary closed in 2009
No
Yes
- 155 -
Exit 2011
No
1,324
(0.820)
272
(0.697)
Yes
290
(0.180)
118
(0.303)
4 Bureaucracy, Informality, and Informal Payments

Business informality, regulation, taxation and corruption are fundamental in any
discussion of private sector development and the business environment in developing
countries. High formal sector entry costs, high regulatory compliance costs and punitive
tax rates can push enterprises to operate informally, foregoing legal recognition in
order to reduce operating costs. The ability of enterprises to reduce or avoid these costs
also relates to the corruptibility of public officials. Corruption may also exist due to
predatory public officials working to extract private rents for fictitious infractions or
questionable interpretations of the rules. The issues of informality bureaucracy, taxation,
and corruption have potentially differing impacts on heterogeneous enterprises, in
particular in terms of enterprise legal structure.
4.1 Informality, Growth and Exit
Defining informality is a problem in itself. In this chapter we consider one definition
of formality: (i) firms with an ECN or (ii) firms with both a BRC and a tax code are
labeled as formal. Table 4.1 documents the summary statistics of our definition in both
2009 and 2011.
Table 4.1 Formality Summary Statistics
2009
2011
Formal (Total)
64.5
(1,618)
70.3
(1,722)
Formal (Balanced)
63.5
(1,270)
69.6
(1,392)
Note: Formal definition: Firm has an ECN or a business registration license

and a tax code.
According to our definition, 70 percent of our sample is formal in 2011. All firms
not registered are household enterprises. This figure is an increase from the recorded 64
percent in 2009.
Table 4.2 shows the formality dynamics using a traditional transition matrix. First,
21.8 percent of the informal firms in 2009 had obtained an official license by 2011.
Moreover, only 2.9 percent of formal firms registered in 2009 no longer had a formal
license in 2011. These figures indicate that registration procedures (and knowledge
hereof) have been significantly improved since the last survey.
- 156 -
Table 4.2 Formality Transition Matrices
Informal 11
Formal 11
Total
Percent
570
159
729
(36.5)
(78.2)
(21.8)
(100.0)
37
1,233
1,270
(2.9)
(97.1)
(100.0)
Total
607
1,392
1,999
(100.0)
Percent
(30.4)
(69.6)
(100.0)
ECN or BRC + Tax code
Informal 09
Formal 09
(63.5)
We now examine how formality is associated with firm growth and exit.5 Table
4.3 shows the results, with our measure of formality included as explanatory variable.
First, we find a positive and significant coefficient estimate in the growth equation,
suggesting that becoming formal is associated with higher employment growth rates,
in accordance with results obtained in Rand and Torm (2012). However, in both exit
probits we are not able to find a statistically significant relationship between firm exit
and formality.
Table 4.3 Firm Dynamics and Formality
Firm Growth
1
Firm Size
log (number of
employees)
Registration
Formal = 1
Location dummies included

Observation
Pseudo R-squared
-0.075***
(9.96)
0.066***
(3.81)
No
No
1,999
0.05
Firm Exit
2
-0.092***
(10.11)
0.087***
(4.32)
Yes
Yes
1,999
0.08
3
0.002
(0.20)
0.032
(1.59)
No
No
2,508
0.00
4
-0.012
(1.28)
-0,015
(0.61)
Yes
Yes
2,508
0.04
Note: OLS and probit, marginal effects. Robust standard errors. *, **, *** indicates significance at a 10%, 5%
and 1% level, respectively. Base: Micro, HCMC, Food processing (ISIC 15).
5 A more detailed analysis using the 2007 and 2009 data on the effects of informality (and the change from informal
to formal) can be found in Rand and Torm (2012).
- 157 -
4.2 Taxes and Informal Costs

According to the World Banks Doing Business survey, the Investment Climate
Assessment survey and the Vietnamese Provincial Competitiveness Index, the ease
of doing business in Vietnam significantly improved over the past years. However,
concerns remain regarding informal charges facing firms as well as the administrative
burden in paying taxes. This final sub-section follows up on last surveys overview of the
burden of taxes and informal payments facing Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises,
to see if improvements have occurred.
Table 4.4 looks at the evolution in the net profits share of gross profits to get
an indication of the amount of taxes paid from 2009 to 2011. From the table we can
conclude that household enterprises do not contribute significantly to the tax base. The
net to gross profit share is around 92 percent in both 2009 and 2011, and between 11
and 15 percent of household enterprises paid zero taxes (net to gross profit share equal
to one). It should be noted that most of the non-tax paying firms are informal household
enterprises as in 2009.
Table 4.4 Net-to-Gross Profit Share
Net Profits/Gross
Profits
Share
Share paying zero

taxes
2009
2011
2009
2011
Total
0.833
0.842
0.102
0.075
0.914
0.922
0.152
0.111
0.669
0.736
0.000
0.000
Cooperative
0.732
0.691
0.000
0.017
0.652
0.668
0.000
0.000
Joint stock company
0.666
0.631
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 which, 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
- 158 -
payments changed over time? Table 4.5 shows that 34 percent of enterprises made
informal payments in 2009, increasing to 38 percent in 2011. This means that the
number of enterprises paying bribes have been increasing since 2007. It can also be
noted that it is primarily 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. Moreover, even in the balanced panel we see
the same trends as in the overall sample, indicating that incumbents are not less likely
to face the increasing pressure for delivering informal payments to get things done.
Table 4.5 How Many Enterprises Pay Bribes?
All
2009
2011
2009
2011
Firms paying bribes
861
937
664
743
(34.3)
(38.3)
(33.2)
(37.2)
738
823
575
658
(45.6)
(47.8)
(45.3)
(47.3)
Informal
123
114
89
85
(13.8)
(15.7)
(12.2)
(14.0)
Formal
Balanced
Table 4.6 shows the bribe transition matrix, which documents that several of the
firms not paying bribes in 2009 paid an informal fee in 2011 (31.3 percent). Similarly,
over 50 percent of the firms paying an informal fee in 2009 did not provide a bribe in
2011. Only 335 out of 1999 firms paid a bribe both in 2009 and 2011.
Table 4.6 How Many Enterprises Pay Bribes?
No bribe 11
Yes bribe 11
Total
Percent
No bribe 09
917
418
1335
(66.8)
(68.7)
(31.3)
(100.0)
339
325
664
(51.1)
(48.9)
(100.0)
Total
1256
743
1999
(100.0)
Percent
(62.8)
(37.2)
(100.0)
Yes bribe 09
- 159 -
(33.2)
Figure 4.1 shows that 30 percent of firms made informal payments to deal with
tax collectors in 2011, up from 26 percent in 2009. Around 26 percent pay informally to
become connected to public services (up from 20 percent in 2009).
figure 4.1 What is the bribe Payment used for?
35
30
25
Percent
20
2009
2011
15
10
5
0
To get conectied To get licenses

to public
and
services
permits
To deal with
taxes and tax
collectors
To gain goverment contracts/

public
procurement
To deal with
customs
Other
Finally, turning to the question of which manufacturing enterprises pay bribes, Table
4.7 lists the results obtained from running a pooled probit using the usual determinants
previously described and both indictor variables for 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).
- 160 -
Table 4.7 Bribe Determinants: The Usual Suspects
All
Coef
Firm Size
ln(number of
employees)
All
t-stats
Coef
Balanced
t-stats
Coef
Balanced
t-stats
Coef
FE
t-stats Coef
t-stats
0.097*** (13.33) 0.093*** (11.99) 0.105*** (13.01) 0.103*** (12.00) 0.069*** (2.80)
Registration (Registered = 1)
0.222*** (12.76) 0.232*** (11.76) 0.228*** (11.90) 0.237*** (10.99) 0.104**
(2.29)
Location dummies
No
Yes
No
Yes
..
Sector dummies
No
Yes
No
Yes
..
Observation
4,957
4,957
3,998
3,998
3,998 (1,999)
Pseudo R-squared
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
..
Note: Pooled probit + Fixed effects (LPM). Robust standard errors. *, **, *** indicates significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level,
respectively. Base: HCMC, Food processing (ISIC 15).
First, larger enterprises have around 10 percent higher probability of paying bribes
than their micro counterparts. Second, being a registered enterprise is positively and
significantly correlated with paying bribes, confirming the results in Rand and Tarp
(2012). Registered firms are 22-23 percent more likely to be bribe payers than their
informal counterparts. Finally, firms in the South are less likely to pay bribes than firms
with similar characteristics in the North (not reported in the table).
Finally Table 4.8 looks at the association between bribes and firm dynamics
(employment growth and firm exit). Firms paying bribes are not expanding their
workforce more than non-paying firms. Moreover, the results suggests that bribe paying
firms are (3 percent) more likely to exit.
Table 4.8 Bribe Determinants: The Usual Suspects
Employment growth
Exit
Coef
t-stat
Coef
t-stat
Coef t-stat
Coef
t-stat
Firm size (log number of
employees)
-0.077*** (-9.81) -0.089*** (-9.80) -0.002 (-0.24) -0.014
(-1.54)
Registered (Yes=1)
0.064*** (3.57) 0.069*** (3.46) 0.027 (1.33) -0.030
(-1.23)
Bribe paying firm (Yes=1) 0.014
(0.82) 0.014
(0.81) 0.033* (1.72) 0.035*
(1.83)
Urban (Yes=1)
0.038**
(2.02)
0.086*** (4.34)
South (Yes=1)
-0.022
(-1.36)
0.044**
(2.33)
Sector dummies
No
Yes
No
Yes
Observation
1,999
1,999
2,508
2,508
Pseudo R-squared
0.05
0.07
0.00
0.03
Note: OLS and Probit. Robust standard errors. *, **, *** indicates significance at a 10%, 5% and 1%
level, respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).
- 161 -
5 Diversification, Innovation and Labor Productivity

This section examines the characteristics of production and technology as well
as labor productivity for SMEs in 2011 and compare the results to 2009. As such this
chapter is comparable to the work done in CIEM (2011).
5.1 Diversification and Innovation
A firm is defined as a diversifying enterprise if it produces more than one 4-digit
ISIC product. Product diversification is expected to make enterprises less vulnerable to
shocks, thereby increasing the probability of survival. Diversification may, however,
come at the cost of lower short-run productivity. Table 5.1 demonstrates the average
degree of diversification by firm size and location. In 2009, some 15 percent of the
enterprises produced more than one product (4-digit ISIC). However, this number
decreased to 11 percent in 2011. Overall, the numbers suggest that the average Vietnamese
enterprise is relatively specialized. Larger enterprises are more likely to produce more
than one product, indicating that specialization decreases as enterprise size increases.
Less diversification in micro enterprises may reflect less competition in their line of
activity or a lack of capacity to produce more than one good. Rural enterprises as well
as firms in the North are more likely to diversify.
Table 5.1 Diversification and Innovation Rates (percent)
Diversification (More than one

4-digit ISIC)
Innovation 1 (New product

development)
Innovation 2 (Improvement of
existing product)
2009
2011
2009
2011
2009
2011
All
14.6
11.1
2.7
4.2
41.4
38.2
Micro
12.1
10.3
1.9
3.7
33.0
32.6
Small
18.5
11.2
3.6
4.9
58.3
49.1
Medium
24.1
20.8
7.4
8.3
59.9
56.9
Urban
13.1
9.3
3.4
5.3
49.3
46.5
Rural
15.7
12.4
2.2
3.4
35.4
32.0
South
11.5
8.3
3.7
3.5
44.8
42.6
North
16.7
13.1
2.0
4.8
39.0
35.0
Note: Numbers in percentages
It has also been suggested that the level of innovation should be considered as a
potential driving force of enterprise dynamics. An enterprise is said to be innovative if it
started production of a new product (at the 4-digit ISIC level) during the last two years
- 162 -
(innovation 1) or if it made significant improvements of existing products (innovation

2). From Table 5.1 we see that the proportion of enterprises introducing a new product
is fairly low although increasing from 2009 to 2011. Larger firms are more likely
to introduce a new product line, and firms in urban areas are more innovative than
enterprises in the rural provinces. It should be mentioned that proportion of firms in
the North introducing a new product line went from 2 percent in 2009 to 4.8 percent in
2011, whereas innovation rates in the South have remained constant in the same period.
The proportion of enterprises improving existing products has declined from 41
percent to 38 percent between 2009 and 2011. Especially firms in the small group are
driving this observed decline. Again urban and enterprises in the south are more likely
to improve existing products than enterprises located in rural northern areas.
Table 5.2 Diversification and Innovation, by Sector
Diversification
Innovation
(new product
development)
Innovation
(improvement of
existing product)
ISIC
(4-digit)
2009
2011
2009
2011
2009
2011
15
Food and beverages
0.073
0.061
0.013
0.023
0.228
0.239
20
Wood products
0.256
0.147
0.024
0.027
0.446
0.304
25
Rubber products
0.142
0.126
0.047
0.039
0.604
0.495
26
products
0.157
0.137
0.029
0.049
0.441
0.304
28
Fabricated metal
products
0.185
0.136
0.026
0.065
0.536
0.462
36
Furniture
0.223
0.152
0.043
0.076
0.561
0.601
Note: Only Sectors with more than 100 observations per year included
Table 5.2 looks at diversification and innovation rates by selected sectors. Firms
in food and beverages (ISIC 15) are less likely to diversify and innovate than firms in
other sectors. Moreover, firms in furniture (ISIC 36) are more likely to both diversify
and innovate.
Table 5.3 looks at the diversification and innovation transition matrices for the
balanced panel. First, we see that only 7.4 percent of the firm not diversifying in 2009
changed less specialized production profil in 2011. However, confirming the tendency
to move towards specialization is confirmed by 64.2 percent of the firms diversifying in
- 163 -
2009 specialized on one 4-digit ISIC product in 2011.

Second, new product innovation by the same firm seldom happen every second
year. Only five firms introduced a new product in both 2009 and 2011. Moreover, 93
percent of the firms did not introduce a new product during the 4 years considered.
Third, a lot of dynamics is observed in the second innovation measure; improvement
to existing products. Only 40 percent (800 out of 1,998) of firms have not improved
existing product during the four years under consideration. Moreover, 31 percent of the
firms not improving existing products in 2009 made changes to product lines during 2011.
Results of pooled probit estimations for describing diversification and innovation
characteristics using firm size, location, ownership type and sector are reported with
robust t-statistics in Table 5.4.
Table 5.3 Diversification and Innovation Transition Matrices
Diversification
No 2011
No 2009
1,566
(92.6)
Yes 2009
192
(64.2)
Total
1,758
Percent
(88.3)
Innovation 1
No 2011
No 2009
1854
(95.1)
Yes 2009
44
(89.8)
Total
1898
Percent
(95.0)
Innovation 2
No 2011
No 2009
800
(69.2)
Yes 2009
452
(53.7)
Total
1252
Percent
(62.7)
Yes 2011
126
(7.4)
107
(35.8)
233
(11.7)
Total
1,692
(100.0)
299
(100.0)
1,991
(100.0)
Percent
(85.0)
Yes 2011
95
(4.9)
5
(10.2)
100
(5.0)
Total
1949
(100.0)
49
(100.0)
1998
(100.0)
Percent
(97.5)
Yes 2011
356
(30.8)
390
(46.3)
746
(37.3)
Total
1156
(100.0)
842
(100.0)
1998
(100.0)
Percent
(57.9)
- 164 -
(15.0)
(100.0)
(2.5)
(100.0)
(42.1)
(100.0)
First, the size-effect reported in Table 5.1 is confirmed, and larger enterprises are
shown to diversify and innovate more than smaller enterprises. Second, household
firms are less likely to diversify, whereas the negative coefficient estimate is only welldetermined for innovation 2. Third, urban firms diversify less but are more likely to
improve existing products than their rural counterparts. The same conclusion is reached
comparing firms in the South and North. One possible explanation for the observed
difference in specialization depending on firm location may be that competition is
fiercer in the southern urban areas (HCMC) relative to the other provinces in the sample.
This result confirms the findings in CIEM (2011). Finally, the time dummies included
confirm that firms are diversifying and improving product less frequently in 2011 than
in 2009, whereas the positive and significant time dummy suggests that there has been
a slight increase from 2009 to 2011 in the probability of introducing new product lines
(controlling for firm size, legal structure, location and sector).
Table 5.4 Diversification and Innovation Characteristics
Firm size (log number of

employees)
Household firm (Yes=1)
Urban (Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Year dummy
Sector dummies
Observation
Pseudo R-squared
Diversification
Coef
t-stat
Innovation 1
Coef
t-stat
Innovation 2
Coef
t-stat
0.013**
-0.074***
-0.050***
-0.037***
-0.033***
Yes
3,980
0.06
0.006*
-0.013
0.006
0.004
0.022***
Yes
3,980
0.07
0.093***
-0.040*
0.046**
0.044***
-0.045***
Yes
3,980
0.10
(2.03)
(-4.69)
(-4.04)
(-3.37)
(-3.18)
(1.85)
(-1.61)
(0.95)
(0.74)
(4.23)
(9.32)
(-1.70)
(2.38)
(2.56)
(-2.78)
Note: Probit, marginal effects. Robust standard errors. *, **, *** indicates significance at a 10%, 5% and 1%
level, respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).
Table 5.5 looks at the relationship between diversification, innovation and firm
dynamics (employment growth and firm exit). Focusing on the top part of the table
first reveals that only Innovation 2 of the three variables introduced above is positive
and well-determined in the employment growth equation. Firms improving existing
products experienced 3 percent higher employment growth than non-innovating firms
between 2009 and 2011. Second, the lower part of the table shows that firms improving
existing products (Innovation 2) were 4.1 percent less likely to exit. The diversification
and Innovation 1 indicators were not well-determined in any of the firm dynamics
specifications.
- 165 -
Table 5.5 Diversification, Innovation and Firm Dynamics
Employment growth (OLS)
Coef
t-stat
Coef
t-stat
Coef
t-stat
Diversification
-0.029
(-1.63)
Innovation 1
0.054
(1.28)
Innovation 2
0.029**
(2.04)
Firm size (log number
of employees)
-0.123*** (-11.00) -0.123*** (-11.01) -0.125*** (-11.22)
Household firm (Yes=1) -0.195*** (-7.05) -0.191*** (-6.99) -0.190*** (-6.95)
Urban (Yes=1)
0.039**
(2.16)
0.041**
(2.24)
0.040**
(2.20)
South (Yes=1)
0.002
(0.11)
0.002
(0.12)
0.002
(0.16)
Sector dummies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observation
1,992
1,992
1,992
R-squared
0.10
0.10
0.10
Diversification
Innovation 1
Innovation 2
of employees)
Urban (Yes=1)
South (Yes=1)
Sector dummies
Observation
Pseudo R-squared
Coef
-0.020
Exit (Probit)
Coef
t-stat
t-stat
(-0.86)
0.058
-0.023**
(-2.30)
-0.035
(-1.46)
0.082***
(4.20)
0.033*
(1.91)
Yes
2,501
0.03
Coef
t-stat
-0.041**
(-2.36)
(1.14)
-0.024**
(-2.39)
-0.032
(-1.33)
0.083***
(4.25)
0.033*
(1.95)
Yes
2,501
0.03
-0.020*
(-1.91)
-0.034
(-1.41)
0.085*** (4.36)
0.034**
(2.02)
Yes
2,501
0.03
Note: OLS and Probit estimates, marginal effects. Robust standard errors. *, **, *** indicates significance at a 10%,
5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).
5.2 Labor Productivity Characteristics

As in last years report (for comparability), this sub-section focuses on two different
measures of labor productivity: (1) Real revenue per full-time employee and (2) Real
value added per full-time employee. This analysis is performed on 1,927 enterprises,
all included in both years. Table 5.6 shows the two labor productivity measures by firm
size and location. The average real revenue per full-time employee was 73.0 million
VND in 2011, whereas real value added per full-time employee was 20.0 million VND.
- 166 -
Both figures reflect a significant real labor productivity growth between 2009 and 2011.
The observed labor productivity growth is mainly driven by micro and small firms.
Moreover, firms in the North have significantly improved output per worker between
2009 and 2011, such that average output related labor productivity has reached the level
of comparable firms in the South.
Table 5.6 Labor Productivity by Firm Size and Location
Labor Productivity 1
Labor Productivity 2
2009
2011
Growth
2009
2011
Growth
All
64.0
73.0
1.7 [1.2]
15.8
20.1
1.7 [1.2]
Micro
51.6
64.1
1.8
12.5
17.4
1.8
Small
82.9
89.6
1.6
21.3
25.3
1.6
Medium
116.5
108.9
1.3
27.8
29.4
1.3
Urban
81.0
90.6
1.8
21.5
25.7
1.6
Rural
52.4
61.0
1.7
11.9
16.2
1.8
South
71.1
73.9
1.5
17.6
22.6
1.6
North
59.3
72.5
1.9
14.6
18.4
1.8
Note: Million real VND. Mean labor productivity (LP) growth is defined as (LP
2011/LP 2009). Median LP growth in brackets.
Table 5.7 shows labor productivity numbers by sector. First, the average real
revenue and value added per full-time employee is relatively high in the rubber sector
(ISIC 25) with 116 (revenue) and 28 (value added) million VND per employee in 2011.
However, the rubber sector is the sector improving labor productivity the least (among
the 6 largest sectors) between 2009 and 2011. Median labor productivity growth rates
are above one in all sectors again highlighting significant overall improvements in labor
productivity among Vietnamese SMEs. However, the variation across firms is large
indicated by that around 40 percent of the firms experienced negative labor productivity
growth between 2009 and 2011.
- 167 -
Table 5.7 Labor Productivity by Sector
ISIC
(4-digit)
15
Food and beverages
20
Wood products
25
Rubber products
26
28
36
Furniture
Share of firms with negative LP growth
(LP growth<1)
LP 1
LP 2
LP 1
LP 2
2009
60.9
47.6
117.0
59.5
59.8
61.3
2011
73.8
55.3
115.9
54.3
71.3
61.3
2009
13.6
12.1
26.5
14.8
15.4
15.4
2011
18.0
15.4
28.1
18.5
19.4
19.5
Growth
1.81
1.79
1.36
1.43
1.65
1.59
Growth
1.86
1.65
1.29
1.72
1.57
1.61
0.40
0.37
Note: Only Sectors with more than 100 observations per year included.
Finally, results of OLS estimations outlining the relationship between labor

productivity growth (2009 to 2011) and a set of standard variables (2009 levels) (location,
ownership form, sector and firm size) and indicator variables for diversification and
innovation are shown in Table 5.8. In addition we control for the 2009 labor productivity
level. Robust standard errors are reported next to the estimation results.
Table 5.8 Labor Productivity Characteristics
Labor Productivity Growth (2009 to 2011)

dln(LP1)
dln(LP2)
Coef
t-stat
Coef
t-stat
Labor productivity level (log)
-0.536***
(-21.90)
-0.629***
(-22.96)
Firm size (log number of employees)
0.116***
(5.37)
0.129***
(6.72)
Diversification (Yes=1)
0.004
(0.09)
-0.038
(-0.90)
Innovation 1 (Yes=1)
-0.014
(-0.16)
-0.042
(-0.45)
Innovation 2 (Yes=1)
-0.007
(-0.18)
0.056*
(1.81)
0.036
(0.69)
0.008
(0.18)
Urban (Yes=1)
0.137***
(3.47)
0.146***
(4.03)
South (Yes=1)
-0.077**
(-2.32)
0.023
(0.78)
Sector dummies
Yes
Yes
Observation
1,920
1,920
Pseudo R-squared
0.29
0.31
Note: OLS. Robust standard errors. *, **, *** indicates significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base:
Food processing (ISIC 15).
- 168 -
We observe the usual decreasing returns pattern, i.e. a highly significant coefficient
estimate on the 2009 productivity level, indicating that firms with a high initial labor
productivity experience lower growth in labor productivity over time. Second, labor
productivity increases with firm size, independent of the measurement of labor
productivity, confirming the result found in Table 5.6. Third, improvements to existing
products is positively associated with value added labor productivity growth, meaning
that enterprises are likely to increase value added per employee by incorporating
changes to existing product lines. Fourth, enterprises located in urban areas experience
higher labor productive growth than enterprises located in rural provinces. Lastly, firms
in the South seem to have experienced lower revenue per employee growth than their
northern counterparts (controlling for size, legal structure, sector etc.).
- 169 -
6 Investment and Access to Finance

Constraints in credit markets have for a long time been cited (by firms) as the most
serious obstacles for future growth of SMEs in Vietnam. This section therefore considers
investment characteristics of the firm and the credit constraints they are facing in Vietnam.
In order to examine investment dynamics and credit constraint development over time
much of the analysis is performed using the balanced panel dataset (2009 and 2011).
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 2009, 61 percent
of the 2,508 enterprises made new investments compared to 56 percent in 2011. The
probability of investing increases by enterprise size, although around 50% of micro
enterprises made investments in 2011. More non-HH enterprises make investments and
firms located in rural and Northern provinces invested more frequently than enterprises
in urban and Southern areas.
Table 6.1 New Investments
2009
2011
Obs.
Share
Obs.
Share
All
2,508
0.609
2,446
0.562
Micro
1,682
0.536
1,686
0.498
Small
664
0.735
616
0.674
Medium
162
0.846
144
0.833
Household firm
1,672
0.544
1,587
0.505
Non-HH firm
836
0.738
859
0.667
Urban
1,090
0.536
1,048
0.529
Rural
1,418
0.665
1,398
0.587
South
1,041
0.508
1,032
0.453
North
1,467
0.680
1,414
0.641
Note: Three observations missing in 2011 due to misreporting.
Table 6.2 looks at the investment persistence among Vietnamese SMEs. Only 444
firms out of 1997 enterprise did not make new investments the past 4 years. At the
same time over 40 percent made new investments in both 2009 and 2011. And finally,
42 percent of the firms not investing in 2009 made investments in 2011. All in all, it is
- 170 -
safe to conclude that the majority of SMEs are investing over a five year time horizon.
Table 6.3 looks at the association between the probability to invest and the group
of traditional firm controls. Throughout the Table the time dummy is negative and welldetermined independent of sample (full or balanced) or estimator (Pooled probit or
fixed effects linear probability model) choice, confirming the general reduction in the
share of firms making new investments in 2011 as compared to 2009.
Table 6.2 Investment Persistence (Investment Transition Matrix)
Investment Transition Matrix
No 2011
Yes 2011
Total
Percent
No 2009
444
319
763
(38.2)
(58.2)
(41.8)
(100.0)
426
808
1,234
(34.5)
(65.5)
(100.0)
Total
870
1,127
1,997
(100.0)
Percent
(43.6)
(56.4)
(100.0)
Yes 2009
(61.8)
Moreover, Table 6.3 shows that larger firms have a higher probability of making
new investments than their smaller counterparts (controlling for legal structure,
location and sector). The estimate is reduced to half when controlling for unobserved
firm characteristics, but the estimate remains well-determined. Household firms are less
likely to make new investments than their more formal counterparts, and somewhat
surprisingly southern urban firms tend to have a significant lower probability of investing
than comparable northern and rural firms.
- 171 -
Table 6.3 Investment Characteristics

All
Coef
Balanced
t-stat
Coef
t-stat
FE
Coef
Firm size (log

number of
employees)
0.150***
(15.33)
0.157***
(14.18)
Household firm
(Yes=1)
-0.048**
(-2.28)
-0.050**
(-2.07)
Urban (Yes=1)
-0.193***
(-10.92)
-0.195***
(-9.72)
South (Yes=1)
-0.200***
(-12.92)
-0.183***
(-10.54)
Year dummy
-0.042***
(-2.88)
-0.050***
(-3.05)
Sector dummies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observation
4,954
3,994
3,994
Pseudo R-squared
0.12
0.12
0.07
t-stat
0.077***
(3.26)
-0.047***
(-3.45)
Note: Probit + Fixed Effects (Linear Probability Model). Robust standard errors. *, **, *** indicates significance
at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).
Figure 6.1 shows how new investments are financed. The average amount of the
investment financed by retained earnings went up from 2009 to 2011. On average, 44
percent of new investments during the last two years are financed by retained earnings.
By contrast, the share financed by own capital was 35 percent in the 2009 survey (only
balanced panel considered). The share of investments financed using formal credit went
down from 52 to 47 percent between 2009 and 2011. The share of investments financed
through informal sources (for example friends and family without interest payments)
also decreased from 13 percent in 2009 to 9 percent in 2011. Informal financing therefore
continues to play a smaller part of the aggregate external financing requirements of
SMEs (declining informal financing share since 2005).
- 172 -
figure 6.1 how Was the investment financed?

60
50
40
30
2009
20
2011
10
0
Retained
earnings
Bank loan +
other formal
financing
Informal
loans
Other
Table 6.4 considers the full 2011 sample of investors, which result in a small
increase (as compared to the balanced panel in Figure 6.1) in the average share of
investments financed by retained earnings. Moreover, micro firms are more likely to
finance investments using retained earnings or informal financing. Urban firms also use
retained earnings and informal financing more frequently to finance investments.
Table 6.4 Investment financing, by firm size and location
All
Micro
Small
Medium
Household
firm
Non-HH firm
Urban
Rural
South
North
Retained Earnings
Percent
45.3
49.5
38.9
38.3
Formal loans
Percent
46.3
40.6
54.1
59.2
Informal loans
Percent
8.4
9.9
7.0
2.5
49.5
39.5
51.0
41.4
50.0
42.9
41.8
52.6
38.4
51.7
44.4
47.3
8.7
8.0
10.6
6.9
5.6
9.8
Note: Full 2011 sample. 1,349 firm observations. Formal financial loans are calculated
as the residual.
- 173 -
6.2 Credit
As in previous SME surveys (CIEM, 2007, 2009, 2011), it should be noted that
the debt share of Vietnamese enterprises is very low, maybe due to liquidity constraints
and restrictions in the access to finance (Rand, 2007). However, the low debt to asset
share of Vietnamese SMEs is in-line with the result that a large part of investments are
financed through retained earnings.
The number of enterprises that applied and obtained formal bank loans or other
forms of credit during the last 2 years, is shown in Table 6.5 for both the full and the
balanced sample. In 2011, some 29 percent (37 percent in 2009), applied for a formal
loan, and 28 percent (20 percent in 2009) had problems getting the loan. These results
are independent of we focus on the full or the balanced sample.
Table 6.5 Access to Credit
2011 Full
2011 - Balanced
Yes
No
Yes
No
Enterprise applied for formal

loan
(719)
(1,729)
(597)
(1,401)
29.4
70.6
29.9
70.1
Yes
No
Yes
No
Problems getting loan
200
(519)
(168)
(429)
27.8
72.2
28.1
72.9
Note: Full and balanced 2011 sample. Numbers in parenthesis are number of observations.
Several enterprises that did not apply for formal credit may still be credit
constrained. However, Figure 6.2 reports why these enterprises did not apply for loans
and 57 percent of the enterprises did not apply for formal loan because they felt that
they did not need one. These firms cannot be classified as credit constrained firms.
Therefore, out of the non-applicant group (1,729 firms) only 43 percent may potentially
be classified as constrained. Including this group as credit constrained means that 752
enterprises has limited access to credit, corresponding to 31 percent of the sample.
Adding rationed firms (the 200 firms having problems obtaining loans) means that 39
percent of firms are rationed or constrained, which is around the level observed in
previous years.
- 174 -
figure 6.2 Why dont enterprises apply for Loans?

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inadequate
Dont
want to
incur
debt
Process
to
difficult
Dont
need
loan
Interest Already
rates to heavily
high indebted
Other
Table 6.6 looks at the relationship between obtaining formal credit and informal
financing. First, we see that twice as many firms obtain informal loans as compared
to formal ones. Comparing this fact with the result in Table 6.4 (informal loans only
finance 8 to 9 percent of total investments) shows that informal loans are small but a
frequent part of Vietnamese SMEs financing scheme. Second, 560 firms out of 2449
have both informal and formal loans and 59 percent of the firms not having formal
credit access use informal loans.
table 6.6 informal Loans and credit constraints
Informal loan
Formal loan
Yes
No
Total
Percent
560
1,024
1,584
(64.7)
(35.4)
(64.6)
(100.0)
159
705
864
(18.4)
(81.6)
(100.0)
Total
719
1,729
2,448
Percent
(29.4)
(70.6)
(100.0)
Yes
No
(35.3)
(100.0)
Table 6.7 looks at formal and informal credit characteristics. In the top part of the
table we look at the full sample whereas the bottom part exclude firms without credit
demand. First, larger firms are more likely to obtain credit, formal as well as informal.
However, it should be noted that firm size is not an important determinant of obtaining
access to informal finance when firms without credit demand are excluded from the
sample.
- 175 -
Table 6.7 Credit Access Characteristics
Formal Credit
Informal Credit
Credit
(Formal+Informal)
Coef
t-stat
Coef
t-stat
Coef
t-stat

of employees)
0.141***
(12.09)
0.071***
(5.41)
0.105***
(8.10)
Household firm
(Yes=1)
-0.039
(-1.45)
-0.110***
(-3.88)
-0.083*** (-3.13)
Urban (Yes=1)
-0.213***
(-9.41)
-0.113***
(-4.76)
-0.182*** (-8.03)
South (Yes=1)
-0.094***
(-4.70)
-0.125*** (-6.00)
-0.135*** (-6.86)
Sector dummies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observation
2,448
2,448
2,448
Pseudo R-squared
0.13
0.06
0.10
Excluding Firms without Credit Demand
Formal Credit
Informal Credit
Credit
(Formal+Informal)
Coef
t-stat
Coef
t-stat
Coef
t-stat

of employees)
0.144***
(10.34)
0.002
(0.18)
0.027***
(3.07)
Household firm
(Yes=1)
-0.038
(-1.18)
-0.109*** (-4.28)
-0.071*** (-3.72)
Urban (Yes=1)
-0.223***
(-8.22)
-0.020
(-0.94)
-0.079*** (-4.93)
South (Yes=1)
-0.085***
(-3.55)
-0.057*** (-3.02)
-0.055*** (-3.81)
Sector dummies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observation
1,958
1,958
1,958
Pseudo R-squared
0.10
0.03
0.07
Note: Probit, marginal effects. Robust standard errors. *, **, *** indicates significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level,
respectively. Base: Food processing (ISIC 15).
Household firms are less likely to obtain informal credit, which means that more
formal entities also rely on informal sources of financing investments. Moreover, firms
in urban areas and in the south are less likely to access credit, although the urban dummy
is not well determined in the informal credit specification excluding firms without credit
demand. Urban firms are however over 20 percent less likely to obtain formal credit
- 176 -
than their rural counterparts and Southern firms 9 percent less likely than the Northern
firms independent of the sample chosen. As in previous surveys, smaller SMEs in
HCMC tend to rely more on retained earnings to finance investments than comparable
firms in other provinces. This may be due to the lack of credit available to smaller firms
in HCMC, but could also be a result of returns to assets generally being higher in the
HCMC area making investments using retained profits more feasible.
- 177 -
7 Employment
This chapter analyzes the structure of the labor market in the Vietnamese SME
manufacturing sector based on a matched employer-employee data set. The chapter
will consider various aspects of the labor market including workforce composition,
occupation composition, hiring methods, trade unions, social benefits, education and
training of the workforce in addition to wage level and wage determinants. Relying on
both data from small and medium sized firms as well as data collected among employees
in these firms it is possible to get additional knowledge and make the analysis more
insightful.
7.1 Workforce Structure and Stability
Table 7.1 reveals that the average share of regular workers (both fulltime and
part time) in Vietnamese SMEs has increased from 2009 to 2011 while the share of
casual workers has decreased (balanced panel). This pattern holds across all size and
location categories. This trend stands in contrast to what was observed between 2007
and 2009. Furthermore, the change from 2009 to 2011 is not driven by new firms in
the manufacturing sector since the results are based on the balanced panel. This could
indicate a recovery from the global economic crisis and generally more optimism.
Often, 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 share of women in the workforce has declined slightly between 2009 and
2011 mostly driven by a decline in the share of women in micro and small firms while the
share of women in medium sized firms is almost constant between 2009 and 2011. The
proportion of unpaid workers has increased slightly from 2009 to 2011 in all categories
with the highest increase in urban regions and in the south (around 2 percent). In rural
areas the fraction of unpaid workers accounts for 50 percent which is not surprising
since many of the employees in these firms are likely to be household members. The
results are consistent within the unbalanced panel.
- 178 -
Table 7.1 Labor Force Composition (percent of total workforce)
All
Micro
Small
Medium
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011
Regular
91.3 95.7 92.2 96.4 88.7 93.7 92.3 95.3 91.4 96.0 91.2 95.4 93.5 97.7 89.8 94.3
Fulltime
87.7 89.1 87.3 88.2 87.9 90.7 91.8 93.1 89.7 91.6 86.4 87.4 90.7 93.2 85.7 86.4
Women
37.1 36.5 35.0 34.6 41.0 40.4 42.4 43.1 36.3 37.1 37.6 36.1 35.4 34.4 38.2 38.0
Unpaid
37.3 38.4 53.5 53.7 5.2
4.7
0.2
0.1
Urban
Rural
South
North
19.8 21.6 49.5 50.0 29.3 31.1 42.7 43.2
No. Of obs. 1,958 1,958 1,315 1,358 513 480 130 120 800 800 1,158 1,158 782 782 1,176 1,176
Note: Average, percentages of total workforce, balanced panel
Table 7.2 shows the labor force composition in percent of the total workforce.
Production workers still constitute the vast majority of the total workforce. The share
of production workers increases with firm size (both in 2009 and 2011) and is higher in
the urban regions compared to rural regions. On average, between 2009 and 2011, firms
saw a decrease in the share of production workers across almost all size and location
categories (medium sized firms had a constant proportion of production workers). By
contrast the proportion of managers rose slightly from 2009 to 2011. Medium sized
firms seem to have the same workforce composition in 2009 and 2011.
Noteworthy is it that 70 percent of the workers (not reported) hired in informal
firms were unpaid in 2011. 6 The share of unpaid workers in formal firms was only 25
percent. This observation is in accordance with the findings of Rand and Torm (2012a)
who, based on the surveys from 2007 and 2009, finds that besides from being beneficial
for firms, formalizing of firms is also beneficial for workers in terms of improved
contract conditions.
Table 7.2 Labor Force Composition by Occupation (percent of total workforce)
All
2009
29.5
3.3
1.7
2.7
0.7
61.9
0.2
1,950
Manager
Professional
Office
Sales
Service
Production
Apprentice
No. of firms.
2011
27.1
3.0
1.5
2.1
0.7
65.3
0.3
1,954
Micro
Small
2009
38.0
1.5
0.6
2.2
0.3
57.3
0.1
1,315
2009
11.3
7.3
3.7
4.0
1.3
71.8
0.5
510
2011
35.4
1.1
0.5
1.4
0.4
61.1
0.2
1,358
2011
11.0
6.7
3.3
3.7
1.2
73.6
0.4
480
Medium
Urban
Rural
2009
5.8
7.9
5.1
3.6
1.8
75.3
0.5
125
2009
21.5
5.8
3.1
3.8
1.0
64.6
0.2
796
2009
35.0
1.6
0.7
2.0
0.4
60.1
0.2
1,154
2011
5.9
7.8
4.2
3.3
2.2
75.8
0.8
116
2011
19.8
4.9
2.7
3.6
1.0
67.4
0.5
796
South
2011
32.2
1.7
0.6
1.1
0.5
63.8
0.1
1,158
2009
22.3
3.4
2.0
3.4
0.6
67.8
0.5
780
North
2011
26.2
4.0
2.2
4.2
0.9
62.2
0.3
779
2009
30.3
2.8
1.1
1.3
0.8
63.6
0.1
1,170
2011
31.7
2.9
1.3
1.7
0.5
61.7
0.2
1,175
Note: Percentages of total workforce, balanced panel. 8 firms did not answer the question in 2009 and 4 firms did not answer in 2011.
6 Informal firms are understood as firms without either an Enterprise Code Number or a tax code.
- 179 -
The employee survey reveals that occupation shifts do occur and the dynamics
are presented in Table 7.3. Of those workers who currently hold manager positions
approximately 30 percent were production workers before, 21.5 percent did not work
before and only 22 percent 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.
Table 7.3 Occupation Transition Matrix
Previous job
Manager
%
Professional
%
Office
%
Sales
%
Service
%
Production
%
Did not work
%
Number of
observations
Current job function

Manager Professional
35
0
22.2
0.0
21
70
13.3
51.9
7
14
4.4
10.4
8
1
5.1
0.7
5
0
3.2
0.0
48
11
30.4
8.1
34
39
21.5
28.9
Office
0
0.0
9
7.6
48
40.7
9
7.6
4
3.4
9
7.6
39
33.1
Sales
1
0.8
5
3.8
5
3.8
33
25.0
11
8.3
29
22.0
48
36.4
Service
0
0.0
2
3.9
2
3.9
3
5.9
19
37.3
14
27.5
11
21.6
Production
2
0.2
6
0.7
12
1.4
4
0.5
22
2.5
617
69.8
221
25.0
158
118
132
51
884
135
Note: Based on the employee survey. Total number of observations is 1,478.
In terms of workforce stability Table 7.4 present the turnover figures for 2011
based on the entire sample. On average, almost the same amounts of jobs were created
as abolish across all size and location categories in 2011. The share of workers hired
in 2011 made up approximately 7 percent of the total workforce and almost an equal
share of workers left the firms. Of the workers who left their firm approximately 2/3 left
voluntary and only around 4 percent was fired.
- 180 -
Table 7.4 Stability of Workforce
All
Micro small Medium Urban Rural Formal Informal South North
Share hired 6.8
5.7
9.0
10.3
7.3
6.4
8.2
3.3
8.7
5.3
Share left
7.0
6.0
9.4
9.1
7.8
6.5
8.3
4.0
8.4
6.0
of which
Left
voluntarily
66.8
66.8
67.5
64.8
60.8
73.6
67.1
63.3
69.5
63.8
Were fired
4.1
2.9
5.4
3.8
4.2
4.0
3.5
10.2
1.7
6.8
Retired
0.3
0.0
0.3
1.5
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.3
Illness
1.5
1.2
1.4
2.8
1.7
1.3
1.7
0.0
1.7
1.4
Died
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
Other
reasons
27.2
29.1
25.4
26.7
32.6
21.0
27.3
26.6
26.8
27.7
612
141
1,038
1,389 1,718
709
1,404 1,023
No. of firms 2,427 1,674
Note: Unbalanced panel. Percent of total workforce.
These results are consistent across all size and location categories. Worth noting is
that in 2011 informal firms had a substantially higher share of workers getting fired than
formal firms. Also, firms located in the North had a relatively high share of employees
getting fired compared to firms located in the South.
7.2 Education, Training, Workplace Conditions and Hiring Methods
To what extend the composition of the workforce is due to firm choice more than
lack of suitable workers is worth some consideration. Table 7.5 reveals that around 17
percent of all firms had difficulties recruiting workers with the appropriate skill level in
2011 and 70 percent of these firms listed lack of workers with the required skill level
as the main reason. Compared to 2009 the share of firms with recruiting difficulties
is almost unchanged. Table 7.5 shows that recruiting difficulties increased substantial
with firm size and are higher in urban areas. 42 percent of all medium sized firms and 11
percent of all micro firms report difficulties with recruiting workers with the appropriate
skill level. More than 70 percent of small, medium sized and urban firms listed lack of
skilled workers as the main reason for recruiting difficulties. This is in line with the fact
that larger and urban firms generally employ more professional workers, as seen in Table
7.2. The results might indicate that skill levels of workers do not match firm demand.
16.6 percent of all firms find difficulties in recruiting workers as a result of insufficient
wage offers and 10 percent listed unattractive working conditions as the main difficulty.
- 181 -
Compared to 2009 the situation is almost unchanged. Since the share of well-educated
workers is relatively high, as see in Table 7.10, it seems that these recruiting difficulties
might be due to lack of labor 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.
Table 7.5 Hiring Difficulties
Difficulties with recruiting workers with

required skills
Yes
Did not recruit
Reason for recruitment difficulties
Lack of skilled labor
Cannot provide sufficient wage offer
Working conditions not attractive
Other
No. of firms
All
Micro
Small Medium
Urban Rural
17.0
43.2
69.9
16.5
10.4
3.2
2,426
(412)
11.2
53.6
66.3
16.0
12.8
4.8
1,673
(187)
27.3
22.5
72.5
19.2
7.2
1.2
612
(167)
23.4
34.4
75.7
14.8
7.8
1.6
1,038
(243)
41.1
9.2
74.1
10.3
12.1
3.4
141
(48)
12.2
49.7
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
1,388
(169)
Number of firms with recruiting difficulties in parentheses. 2011 survey.
Table 7.6 shows that the most common recruiting method is through informal
contacts, which constitute more than 60 percent of all recruiting methods.7 This pattern
holds across all size and location categories (except for micro firms where it constitutes
58 percent). Particularly small firms use recommendations by friends as the main
recruiting methods where 75 percent of hires are done informally. These results are
consistent with findings from 2009 (not reported). Both rural and urban firms use to a
large extent informal recruiting methods and urban firms hire more than 65 percent of
the workers by informal methods. Noteworthy is that around one third of both rural and
micro firms report non-applicable. This might bias the results since it is most likely
that workers hired in these firms are household members and then, by definition, hired
informally. Hiring methods can have different implications including in terms of the
wage setting. Larsen, Rand and Torm (2011) document, based on the 2007 survey, that
workers hired by personal contacts or other forms of informal hiring methods receive a
significant wage premium.
7 Recommended by friends/relatives or other workers and personal contacts are understood as informal recruiting
methods.
- 182 -
Table 7.6 Recruitment Methods
Recruitment Methods
All
Micro Small
Medium
Urban Rural
Newspaper advertisement
5.5
1.9
10.1
29.1
9.8
2.3
Labor exchange
2.6
2.2
3.9
2.1
2.9
2.4
Recommended by friends/relatives or
other workers
39.1
33.6
54.2
37.6
42.1
36.8
Recommended/allocated by local
authorities
1.3
1.0
1.8
2.8
2.0
0.7
Personal contacts
23.0
24.8
20.8
12.1
26.3
20.6
Through employment service centers
1.5
0.5
2.9
7.1
2.9
0.5
Other
2.0
1.4
3.1
5.0
1.6
2.3
Not Applicable
25.0
34.7
3.1
4.3
12.3
34.4
No. of firms
2,427
1,674 612
141
1,038
1,389
Note: 2011 survey
In Table 7.7 recruitment methods across sectors are considered. Firms producing
Food and Beverages or manages Wood are less likely to use informal hiring methods
compared to the other sectors shown in the table. The Food and Beverages and the Wood
sector do, however, have a relatively large share of firms answering not applicable.
Sometimes owners/managers supervise their workers to ensure that these work
hard enough. Table 7.8 shows that around 17 percent of all firms rely on some kind
of supervision, either through foreman or workers supervising each other. Around 25
percent of all firms make incentives to work hard trough additional payment systems and
12 percent provide fridge benefits. It seems that there is not a considerable difference
between male and female managers/owners with regards to supervision at the workplace.
- 183 -
Table 7.7 Recruitment Methods by Sector

Food and
Beverages
Wood
NonFabricated Furniture,
Rubber metallic
metal
jew ect.
mineral
Newspaper advertisement
2.7
1.6
7.9
4.3
4.9
4.1
Labor exchange
1.9
1.2
3.5
2.6
2.3
3.1
Recommended by friends/
relatives or other workers
29.4
38.6
50.0
47.4
42.6
43.8
Recommended/allocated by
local authorities
0.9
0.4
2.6
1.7
1.6
1.5
Personal contacts
18.2
25.3
23.7
30.2
28.0
26.8
Through employment
service centers
0.7
0.4
3.5
2.6
1.9
Other
1.8
2.4
5.3
3.4
1.6
1.0
Not Applicable
44.4
30.1
3.5
7.8
17.1
19.6
No. of firms
737
249
114
116
432
194
Note: 2011 survey
In Table 7.5 the majority of firms indicated trouble with finding workers with
adequate skills. Intuitively this might result in more training at the workplace. However,
Table 7.9 shows that only 8.4 percent of all firms provide training of new workers and
only 6.8 percent 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 labor.
- 184 -
Table 7.8 Measures to Ensure that Employees Work Hard Enough
Do you rely on measures to ensure that your employees work hard enough
All
Micro
Supervision through
foreman
12.6
10.3
15.9
20.0
14.0
11.3 10.4
14.4 13.0
11.8
Employees supervise each

4.5
other
4.7
4.5
2.9
4.6
4.5
4.9
4.1
5.3
Incentives through
additional payment
systems
24.7
22.7
27.9
30.0
26.6
22.9 29.4
20.8 24.1
25.6
Social (fringe) benefits
12.1
11.4
11.9
19.3
14.1
10.3 18.1
7.1
11.0
14.0
Cultivating Trust/Loyalty/
21.2
Obligation
24.6
14.9
14.3
17.2
24.7 14.5
26.7 22.5
18.8
Management by quality of
18.8
production
19.4
19.9
7.9
18.2
19.3 14.9
22.0 18.4
19.5
Time supervision
5.4
5.8
4.6
5.7
4.5
6.3
7.5
3.7
6.3
4.0
Threat of dismissal
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
Others
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.0
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
2115
1372
603
140
999
1116
954
No. of firms
Small Medium Urban Rural South North Men Women
4.1
1161 1335
780
Note: 2011 survey. 312 firms did not answer the question and were removed
The share of firms providing training for workers has changed slightly between
2009 and 2011 with around 7 percent in 2011 and 8.5 percent in 2009. However, there
has been a substantial rise in the share of medium firms providing training for new
workers between 2009 and 2011 with 28 percent in 2009 and 35 percent in 2011. The
share of small firms providing training rose from 9.5 percent in 2009 to almost 15
percent in 2011. In contrast, there has been a drop in micro firms providing training
of workers between 2009 and 2011 (numbers for 2009 are not reported). The rise in
small and medium sized firms providing training for new workers might be caused by
the need of better skilled workers or because firms are less resource constrained due
to recovery after the global economic crisis. Firms located in urban regions are more
likely to provide training to new workers compared to rural firms.8
8 Results based on unbalanced panel.
- 185 -
Table 7.9 Training of Workforce

All
Micro
small
Medium Urban
Rural
Food and
Beverages
NonWood Rubber
metallic
mineral
Fabricated Furniture,
metal
jew ect.
Provides
training
for new
workers
8.4
2.3
14.9 35.5
11.0
5.8
5.3
6.5
10.6
4.6
5.2
7.7
Provides
training
for
existing
workers
6.8
3.1
12.4 20.6
10.0
4.1
2.9
6.5
6.1
7.9
4.7
5.0
No. of
firms
2,029 1,285 603
1,033 996
584
205
114
114
402
180
141
Note: All firms that did not answer were removed. 2011 survey.
Table 7.9 also shows that the share of firms providing training of existing workers
has increased between 2009 and 2011 with approximately 7 percent of all firms
providing training for existing workers in 2011 compared to only 3 percent in 2009.
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 fulfill their job requirements.
The findings are based on the unbalanced panel but are consistent within the balanced
panel. Finally, it seems that a relatively large share of rubber producing firms and firms
making furniture provide training for new workers.
Turning to the educational level of the workforce, Table 7.10 reveals that almost
19 percent of the workers surveyed in the employee module have a university education
with a notably higher share for women. Since the sample consist of workers hired in
private SMEs the results are likely to be biased. 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, finds employment in private owned firms. Any inferences regarding
educational attainment for workers should, therefore, be drawn bearing this in mind.
- 186 -
Table 7.10 Education Attainment

Highest level of education
Women
Men
Total
0.6
0.8
0.7
11
Primary school (%)
6.7
4.1
5.1
41
35
76
Secondary school (%)
18.5
22.2
20.6
114
191
305
High school (%)
30.8
36.0
33.8
190
310
500
Technical certificate/Elementary worker

(%)
2.1
2.4
2.3
13
21
34
Technical worker without certificate (%)
7.5
13.0
10.7
46
112
158
Technical worker/professional secondary

(%)
8.1
7.9
8.0
50
68
118
College/University/post-graduate (%)
25.6
13.7
18.7
158
118
276
No. of obs.
616
862
1,478
None (%)
Note: Numbers in bold. Employee survey.
7.3 Trade Unions

Only firms with 10 workers or more are obligated to have a local level trade union
according to the enterprise law. This section will, therefore, focus on firms that are
classified as small or medium sized because they employ more than 10 employees.
Hence, all firms with less than 10 workers have been excluded from the sample that
is considered in Table 7.11. Based on the unbalanced panel almost 26 percent of all
firms had a local trade union in 2009 and 2011. The frequency of local trade unions
various greatly by firm size, from 16 percent for small firms to 67 percent for medium
sized firms. The share of medium sized firms having a trade union has increase slightly
from 2009 to 2011 whereas the share of rural firms with a local level trade union has
- 187 -
decreased. It appears that firms headed by a male owner/manager are less likely to have
a local level trade union compared to female owned firms. The share of male headed
firms with local level trade unions has decreased between 2009 and 2011. In all other
categories the share of firms with a trade union has been almost constant between 2009
and 2011. Table 7.11 also reveals that trade unions are more common in urban areas
compared to rural areas. Finally, is seems that firms located in the south are more likely
to have a local level trade union compared to firms located in the north.
Table 7.11 Share of Firms Having a Local Trade Union and Its Members
Unbalanced Panel
Balanced Panel
Share of firms
Share of workers
Share of firms
Share of workers
2009
2011
2009
2011
2009
2011
2009
2011
All
25.8
25.8
81.0
77.3
27.7
26.3
81.2
77.9
Small
16.6
16.4
83.4
76.5
18.4
17.2
83.7
77.3
Medium
63.5
66.7
78.2
76.7
64.6
62.5
77.9
76.7
Urban
31.3
33.6
81.9
75.4
33.3
34.5
82.2
76.0
Rural
16.2
13.2
77.9
84.9
18.1
13.3
77.8
85.4
South
32.3
34.1
74.0
72.7
36.4
34.7
74.3
73.4
North
20.3
18.9
90.5
84.3
20.8
19.8
90.7
83.9
Male owner
23.3
21.2
79.7
82.8
25.4
22.0
78.4
85.0
Female
owner
29.9
31.9
81.9
73.3
31.8
31.8
81.9
74.3
No. of obs.
811
751
211
202
642
598
180
164
Note: The results are based on a selected sample. All micro firms have been removed from the sample
When unions do exist the workforce participation is generally quite high with
around 77 percent of workers being members in 2011. It is noteworthy that 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. A decrease in the average share of workers
joining trade unions is observed between 2009 and 2011. This decrease is observed
across all categories except rural and male owned firms. It is quite surprising that
workers decreasingly become members of local level trade unions since this should be a
way to get better working conditions, higher wages and be ensured social benefits. The
decrease in workers becoming members might be caused by various reasons including
lack of awareness about the benefits of union membership, a tendency to free-ride, or a
- 188 -
presumption of trade union inefficiency.9

More than 45 percent 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. 13.4 percent listed job security as the main benefit and 12.6 listed safety
at the workplace as the most important benefit (not reported). Since more than 45
percent 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.
Following Torm (2011) a simple Probit model is estimated illustrating the
association between social benefits and trade union membership and Table 7.12 shows
the results. It appears that being a trade union member is statistically significant and
positively associated with receiving social benefits and the result are consistent both
when controlling for employee and firm/employee characteristics (column 1 and 2).
In column (1) only employee characteristics are included. Well educated workers,
professionals and sales and service workers are more likely to receiving benefits
relatively to production workers. However, well educated workers are often more likely
to be union members, which might influence on the results. In addition it seems that
workers hired by personal contacts are less likely to receive social benefits.
In column 2, a number of firm specific variables are included. This does change some
of the results documented above. Once controlling for firm characteristics, occupation
categories become insignificant and the significance of educational level falls. The
inclusion of firm characteristics reveal that workers in larger firms are more likely to
receive benefits whereas being hired through an informal contact is still negatively
associated with social benefits. Male owners are negatively, however not statistically
significant, associated with social benefits. This is in accordance with the findings in
Figure 7.4 (to be addressed later). Finally, individuals working in larger firms, CCPs,
joint stock companies, private firms, Limited liability companies, and in firms with a
higher share of professional workers all have a higher probability of receiving benefits.
9 70 percent of firms had a collective labor agreement in 2011. However, only 214 firms answered the question.
- 189 -
Table 7.12 Workers Receiving Social Benefits

Probit estimation
(1)
(2)
Member of a Trade Union (yes=1)
0.482***
(25.11)
0.375***
(10.57)
Gender of Worker (Male=1)
0.031
(1.00)
0.005
(0.13)
Age of Worker
-0.004
(-0.46)
-0.011
(-1.15)
Age squared/100
0.002
(0.15)
0.013
(1.03)
Manager
0.057
(1.18)
-0.029
(-0.52)
Professional
0.237***
(5.65)
0.059
(0.98)
Sales
0.123***
(2.61)
0.042
(0.73)
Service/Office
0.226***
(5.73)
0.091*
(1.74)
Secondary school and above (yes=1)
0.164***
(4.75)
0.060
(1.55)
Technical worker (yes=1)
0.069*
(1.75)
-0.082*
(-1.74)
Recruited by informal methods
-0.147***
(-4.82)
-0.145***
(-4.42)
Tax code (yes=1)
0.034
(0.64)
Gender of Owner (Male=1)
-0.024
(-0.71)
Firm size(log)
0.109***
(4.90)
0.121**
(2.37)
CCP
0.264***
(4.12)
Limited liability
0.199***
(4.33)
Joint stock
0.235***
(4.75)
Professionals share of total workforce
0.585**
(2.27)
Share of total workforce which are

women
-0.242***
(-2.94)
Owner has high education
0.123*
(1.94)
Number of observations
1,368
1,368
Sector dummies
No
Yes
Province dummies
No
Yes
Note: Dependent variable: Dependent variable: Worker receives social benefits. Probit estimates, marginal
effects reported. For education, occupation and legal status, the reference categories are secondary education
and below, production worker and Household, respectively. *, **, *** denote significance at a 10 %, 5 %,
and 1 % level, respectively. t-statistics based on robust standard errors are reported in parentheses.
The results in Table 7.12 compare union members in firms with a local level union
with non-union members in both union and non-union firms. Hence, the results should
be interpreted with caution since non-union members in non-union firms are not faced
with the option of becoming union members. The results are, however, consistent with
- 190 -
the findings of Torm (2011). Torm (2011) also finds, based on the matched employeremployee panel data from 2007 and 2009, that membership of Vietnamese trade unions
is linked with wage gains. In addition, she documents that within unionized firms,
workers that are union members are more likely to receive social benefits than nonmembers.
Returning to Table 7.11 the findings based on the balanced panel reveal that the
share of firms with a local level trade union has decreased between 2009 and 2011.
The result from the balanced panel indicates that some firms have shifted from having
a local level trade union in 2009 to not having one in 2011. The findings also showed
that more firms are leaving local trade unions than firms getting local level trade unions.
Table 7.13 reveals that 11.7 percent of firms in the balanced panel have shifted from
having a local level trade union in 2009 to not having one in 2011. In contrast to this
only 9.4 percent of the firms have shifted from not having a local level trade union in
2009 to having one in 2011. This pattern is observed across all location categories.
Medium sized firms are, however, more likely to be unionized than to be de-unionized.
This development is a potentially cause of concern since local level trade unions are
important in terms of ensuring social benefits, job security and safety for the employees.
Table 7.13 Transition Firms (%)
Small
Medium Urban
Rural
South
North
De-unionized firms 11.7
11.2
16.0
13.2
9.2
15.1
9.2
Unionized firms
9.4
6.6
22.0
11.7
5.4
11.5
7.8
No. of firms
511
393
118
326
185
326
185
All
Note: Balanced panel. Since micro firms are excluded the number of observations is 1,240 firms.
There is a considerable difference between the 2009 and 2011 surveys as regards
to who is chairman of the local trade unions. Figure 7.1 reveals that around 33.5 percent
of the chairmen of local trade unions are managers. This is a decrease from 45 percent
in 2009. In contrary around 44 percent of the trade unions are chaired by senior workers
compared to only 32 percent in 2009. This change indicates a positive development
towards local trade unions to play an important role in defending labor rights and
ensuring social benefits, job security and safety in the workplace. These findings make
it even more surprising that the share of workers who are trade union members has
decreased since 2009.
- 191 -
figure 7.1 trade union chairman
Owner of the enterprise

Relative to the owner
Managerial staff (non-owner)
Head of personnel section
Senior worker
Other
7.4 Wage Setting, Social Benefits and Contracts

With regards to the wage level the average monthly nominal wage for the workers
surveyed in the employee sample is 2800 thousand VND with an average wage for men of
2900 thousand VND and an average wage for women of 2700 thousand VND.10 This wage
gap is persistent across all job functions as shown in figure 7.2 and the wage difference is
particularly high among professional workers. From Figure 7.2 it seems that a positive
wage premium exists for all occupation categories compared to production workers.
Figure 7.2 Average Monthly Wage (in 1,000 VND)
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
All
Women
Men
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Manager Professional
Office
Sales
Service
Production
Note: Observations above the 99 % percentile have been removed to take account of
outliers. Data is from the employee module.
10 Observations above the 99 % percentile have been removed to take account of outlier.
- 192 -
Figure 7.3 shows the average real monthly wage in 2009 and 2011 grouped by
occupation. The average real monthly wage was just below 1685 thousand VND in
2011 and just above 1427 thousand VND in 2009. Hence, the real wage has increased
by almost 18 percent during the considered two year period. This means that the real
wage on average has increased by around 8 percent per annum between 2009 and 2011.
The observed wage increase is comparable to China, a country with which Vietnam
shares many features, and where the average annual salaries in the private sector rose
by 6.6 percent in 2009 (ILO, 2010). Finally, the findings in Figure 7.3 indicate that the
wage increase seems persistent across all occupation categories.
Figure 7.3 Average Monthly Real Wage (in 1,000 VND)
2009
2011
Manager
Professional
Office
Sales
Service
Production
Note: Monthly real wage have been deflated using World Bank CPI (2005=100).
A simple wage regression based on both employee and firm characteristics with all
the traditional wage determinants included is presented in Table 7.14. The table shows
a significantly and positive wage premium for all occupation categories as compared
to production workers and confirms the findings from Figure 7.2. Furthermore, these
findings are in accordance with the findings of Larsen, Rand and Torm (2011). The
indicators representing High school and above and Technical worker are significant at
a 1 % level. 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). Based on data from 56 Chinese cities they show that years of schooling
are positively correlated with the wage level. Furthermore, they also find that age of the
- 193 -
worker is positively associated with the wage level whereas age squared is negatively
related to the wage level. Table 7.14 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. Finally, the results confirm
the existence of a significant gender wage gap and confirm the findings in Figure 7.2.
Furthermore, gender wage gaps are common particular in developing countries and
the finding corresponds to various empirical studies (e.g. Liu, 2004; Hering & Poncet,
2010; Vu, 2012). This result might reflect discrimination against women in Vietnam.
Table 7.14 Wage Determinants
Dependent variable: ln(real wage)
Gender of Worker (male=1)
Age of Worker
Age squared/100
Workers number of years in firm
Years in firm squared/100
Manager
Professional
Sales
Service/Office
High school and above (yes=1)
Technical worker (yes=1)
On-the-job training (yes=1)
Recruited by informal methods (yes=1)
Tax code (yes=1)
Gender of Owner (male=1)
Firm size (log)
Professionals share of total workforce
Share of total workforce which are women
Exporting
R-squared
Sector dummies
Legal structure dummies
Province dummies
(1)
0.110***
0.030**
-0.035**
0.006
-0.027
0.369***
0.198***
0.079**
0.125***
0.180***
0.186***
0.115***
0.002
0.139
1,119
No
No
No
(2)
(4.66) 0.061**
(2.46) 0.023**
(-2.29) -0.027**
(1.08) 0.003
(-1.12) -0.019
(8.58) 0.317***
(5.29) 0.147***
(2.24) 0.053*
(3.74) 0.089***
(4.60) 0.099**
(4.14) 0.102**
(5.01) 0.058***
(0.06) 0.034
-0.101**
0.092***
0.047***
0.096
-0.202***
-0.048
0.251
1,119
Yes
Yes
Yes
(2.54)
(2.33)
(-2.13)
(0.47)
(-0.83)
(7.34)
(3.91)
(1.66)
(2.78)
(2.57)
(2.22)
(2.73)
(1.33)
(-1.98)
(3.38)
(3.34)
(0.48)
(-3.51)
(-1.41)
Note: Dependent variable: Log real wage. Wages deflated using World bank CPI (2005=100). Estimation
based on monthly wage. Only 1,121 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. *, **, *** denote significance at a 10 %, 5 %, and 1 % levels, respectively.
Observations above the 99 % percentile have been removed. t-statistics based on robust standard errors
are reported in parentheses.
- 194 -
In column 2, a number of firm specific variables are included. This does not change
the basic results documented above, although the magnitude of coefficients fall for
almost all variables. Firm size has a significant and positive association with wages,
which is in line with the general finding that earnings tend to be positively related to firm
size (e.g. Soderbom et al., 2005). Noteworthy is it that male owners seem be statistically
significantly and positively related to the wage level. One possible explanation might be
that male owners compensate for the lack of social benefits by providing higher wages.
The results in Table 7.12 revealed that male owners are negatively associated with the
prevalence of social benefits, however, not significantly. In addition, it appears that the
share of women in the workforce is negatively associated with the wage level. Also,
it seems that formality of firms is negatively related to the wage level. This is quite
surprising but might arise because those workers with relative high potential informal
sector return will self-select into that sector. It seems, however, surprising since Rand
and Torm (2012b) show, based on the firm survey data from 2009 that average wages
are higher in formal firms compared to informal firms. However, the study by Rand
and Torm (2012b) is done only on firm level data. Finally, an indicator representing
exporting firms is included in the regression. Beforehand one would expect that firms
which are exporting are likely to provide a higher wage level to their workers (e.g.
Bernard et al, 1995). From the results in Table 7.14 this does, however, not seem to
be the case. This finding is in line with the findings of Vu (2012). Based on data from
Vietnamese SMEs Vu (2012) finds that the expected exporter wage premium disappear
when both firm and worker characteristics are added to the regression.
In terms of wage setting basis table 7.15 shows that the most common way to
set the wages is through individual negotiations. Paying capacity of the enterprise and
wage rates in other non-state enterprise constitute important wage determinants as well.
In particular firms located in the North determine the wages based on wages in other
non-state owned enterprises. Compared to 2009 considerable fewer firms are setting
the wages through individual negotiations (from 52 percent in 2009 to 45 percent in
2011) whereas more firms are setting wages according to the paying capacity of the
firm or wage rates in other non-state firms. This pattern is consistent across all size and
location categories. Furthermore, Table 7.16 reveals some variation in the main wage
determinants across sectors.
- 195 -
Table 7.15 Main Wage Determinants
All
Micro
Small
Medium Urban
Rural
South North
18.2
17.6
18.0
24.1
13.5
23.1
11.4
24.4
2.2
1.7
3.1
2.8
2.9
1.5
1.6
2.9
4.6
1.9
7.4
13.5
7.0
2.1
7.1
2.2
2.0
2.6
1.0
1.4
0.6
3.3
1.8
2.1
44.8
48.3
42.0
29.1
42.4
47.3
43.7
45.8
27.2
26.8
27.5
29.1
32.6
21.6
33.3
21.6
1.1
900
0.9
982
Wage rates in other local

non-state enterprises
Wage rates in local state
enterprises
Set by authorities
Wage rates for
employment in
agriculture
Individual negotiations
Paying capacity of the
enterprise
Other
No. of firms
1.0
1.1
1,882 1,131
1.0
610
0.0
141
0.9
956
1.1
926
Note: 2011 survey.
Table 7.16 Main Wage Determinants by sector

Food and
Wood
Beverages
NonFabricated Furniture,
Rubber metallic
metal
jew ect.
mineral
Wage rates in other local

non-state enterprises
17.3
17.9
14.5
28.6
17.8
20.4
Wage rates in local state

enterprises
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.4
Set by authorities
4.1
2.2
10.0
4.8
4.0
Wage rates for employment

in agriculture
2.6
4.3
2.9
0.8
3.0
Individual negotiations
43.6
56.5
40.9
40.0
43.9
52.7
Paying capacity of the

enterprise
29.7
16.8
30.9
20.0
31.1
20.4
Other
1.0
0.5
1.8
1.9
0.5
1.2
No. of firms
417
184
110
110
376
167
Note: 2011 survey.
With regards to social benefits the most commonly provided benefit is unpaid
maternity leave with more than 50 percent of all firms providing this. The second most
commonly provided benefit is compensating directly for accidents or professional
- 196 -
illness, as seen in Table 7.17. Compared with 2009 the share of firms providing social
insurance and health insurance contributions has increased. The share of firms paying
sick leave has decreased from 30 percent in 2009 to 28 percent in 2011. Except from
sick leave all types of social benefits have increased since 2009 and, therefore, working
conditions seem to improve with time. Table 7.17 also reveals that almost 17 percent
of all firms pay contribution to unemployment insurance. Finally, Table 7.16 shows
that firms located in the south are more likely to provide all types of social benefits
compared to firms located in the north. This corresponds well with the observations in
Table 7.11, which revealed that firms in the south are more likely to have a local level
trade union compared to firms in the north.
Table 7.17 Social Benefits (%)
All
Micro Small Medium
Urban
Rural South North
Social insurance
contribution
21.9 4.2
47.5
92.2
33.3
12.0
29.1
16.1
Health insurance
contribution
22.5 4.3
49.2
92.2
33.5
12.9
30.1
16.3
Unemployment insurance
16.4 2.0
35.5
79.4
26.5
7.5
22.8
11.1
Compensates directly for

accidents or professional
illness
35.0 21.6
54.1
85.8
51.0
21.0
43.9
27.6
Sick leave
27.8 9.5
51.9
92.2
39.4
16.7
33.7
22.4
Paid maternity leave
26.2 6.7
49.8
93.6
36.6
15.8
31.6
21.1
Upaid maternity leave
57.2 44.2
74.2
97.2
79.9
35.1
67.1
48.0
Annual leave with pay
26.1 7.2
50.8
91.5
36.7
15.9
31.7
20.9
Retirement lump-sum
22.7 4.3
46.3
86.5
33.0
12.5
28.2
17.5
Survival Benefits
31.4 14.7
52.4
91.4
40.1
22.7
39.3
23.9
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. 2011 survey.
The prevalence of social benefits also varies with gender of the owner/manager.
Figure 7.4 shows that female owners/managers are more inclined to provide all kinds
of social benefits compared to male managers/owners. These findings are in accordance
with the findings of Rand and Tarp (2011) who concludes that women owned/managed
SMEs are more likely than men owned/managed firms to provide employees with fridge
benefits such as, for example, annual leave and health insurance.
- 197 -
Figure 7.4: Social Benefits, by Gender of Owner/Manager

67.3
51.6
22.0
37.0
36.7
20.4
20.0
Annual leave with pay
Upaid maternity leave
Paid maternity leave
Sick leave
12.6
42.3
33.2
Women
Men
25.3
16.9
Survival Bennefits
23.6
Compensates for accidents
16.8
31.4
Unemployment insurance
Social insurance
16.1
32.8
Health insurance
32.6
38.5
Retirement lumps-sum
41.5
Note: 2011 survey. Firms with missing observations have been excluded.
From Figure 7.5 it can be seen that the average share of regular full time workers
with formal written contracts was 26.7 percent in 2011, on average. The average share
of workers with formal written contracts differs greatly across firm size and location. On
average, almost 90 percent of the workers in medium sized firms have formal written
contracts compared to 10 percent of workers in micro firms. Figure 7.5 also shows
that female owners/managers generally have a more formalized workforce and provide
contracts to almost 35 percent of their workers. This is a considerable larger share than
that of male owners/managers. Given that contracts are important in ensuring social
benefits these findings correspond well with the results that female owners/managers
are more likely to provide social benefits.
- 198 -
Figure 7.5: Formal Contracts, by Gender of owner/Manager

100
90
80
70
60
Men
50
Woman
Total
40
30
20
10
0
Micro
All
Small
Urban
Medium
South
Rural
North
Figure 7.5 showed that only a part of the workforce is provided with formal written
contracts and these have different duration. Table 7.18 reveals that, on average, more
than 75 percent of these formal written contracts have duration longer than 12 month
and that 37 percent of these contracts have indefinite term.
Table 7.18: Duration of Formal Contracts (percent of workers)
All
Micro
Small
Medium Urban
Rural
Indefinite term contract
37.2
35.2
36.2
41.9
36.0
40.2
Valid btw 12 and 36 months
38.6
39.5
39.8
34.1
40.6
33.4
Valid btw 3 and 12 months
20.7
21.5
20.4
20.7
20.3
21.7
Valid less than 3 months
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.3
3.1
4.7
No. of firms
547
109
325
113
396
151
Note: 2011 survey. The figures give the share of workers with contract with the specific duration
- 199 -
8 Firm Capabilities
This chapter explores factors associated with firm capabilities of Small and
Medium sized Enterprises. Concretely, it aims at relating some characteristics of the
owner/manager firm performance. This is done mainly on the basis of insight from the
2011 survey. However, the analysis does also rely on data collected in 2009 as well
as the matched employer-employee data. Relying on the panel data set enables us to
obtain a better impression of firm improvement between 2009 and 2011. The chapter is
organized as followed: the first part provides an overview of the main characteristics of
owners/managers and the remaining parts relate these capabilities to different measures
of firm performance.
8.1 Owner Characteristics
Following Sutton (2004)11, this chapter divides firm capabilities into revealed
and underlying capabilities, where the former is understood as labor productivity and
product quality and the latter consist of knowledge held by the individuals comprising
the firm.12 In the following pages these underlying capabilities are measured by the
owners/managers work experience, education and gender.
Intuitively, a higher level of education of the owner/manager is expected to
enhance firm capabilities and, thereby, to have a positive impact on firm performance.
Higher formal education may provide the owner/manager with capacity to learn about
new production processes and, thereby, increase owners/managers flexibility. Human
capital is commonly measured as years of schooling or level of education. Empirical
studies have shown how education is positively correlated with firm growth (e.g.
Mengiste, 2006). The empirically evidence in terms of an educational effect is, however,
ambiguous (Nichter and Goldmark, 2009). Nichter and Goldmark (2009) suggest that
by recognizing a country-specific threshold of education the education effect becomes
clearer - education above this threshold has a positive impact on firm growth. Hence,
the first owner/manager capability considered here is education. In this chapter it is,
however, expected that educational level of the manager/owner is positively associated
with firm performance.
11 Informal note by John Sutton based on his Clarendon lecture of 2004.

12 Product quality defined as the buyers willingness to pay for this specific product compared to a rival firms product.
- 200 -
Previous work experience may also contribute to the owner/manager capabilities

through the acquisition of skills and knowledge (learning-by-doing). Employees often
acquire experience at their job. Hence, previous work status will increase the capabilities
of the owner/manager. In addition, experience form previous work will expand the
owners/managers social network and, thereby, indirectly impact firm performance. The
case of social networks will be addressed later in this report. For these reasons this
chapter investigates the relationship between the owners/managers previous work
status and firm performance.
In terms of a gender effect on firm performance we expect male owners/managers
to have a positive impact on firm performance and particularly on firm growth. This
expectation is based partly on empirical studies and partly on limitations faced by female
owners/managers in developing countries (see for instance Goedhuys & Sleuwaegen,
2000). For instance, often women in developing countries are faced with limited legal
rights, restricted access to credit as well as having household obligations (The World
Bank (IFC), 2012; Fletschner, 2009; Amin 2011). Such disadvantages of a female leader
might lead to lower levels of efficiency and firm growth among female headed firms.
Consequently, gender is the last of the owners/managers capability, which is related to
firm performance in this chapter.
Table 8.1 documents the level of basic education of the owner/manager grouped
by firm size and location. According to Table 8.1, 61.5 percent of all owners/managers
had finished an upper secondary education in 2011 and 28.4 had finished a lower
secondary education. These findings indicate a relatively high level of education in
Vietnamese SMEs. The educational level has increased slightly between 2009 and 2011
with approximately 58 percent having an upper secondary education in 2009.
- 201 -
Table 8.1 Basic education and work experience of owner/manager

by firm size and location
All
Micro
Small
Medium
Urban
Rural
North
South
Respondent
basic education 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011
Not finished
primary
3.9
1.5 5.0
2.0 1.8
0.7 0.6
0.0 3.2
1.4 4.4
Finished
primary
9.2
8.6 11.7 10.8 5.1
4.2 0.0
0.7 7.4
5.5 10.6 10.9 6.6
Finished lower
secondary
28.6 28.4 36.1 35.7 15.5 14.2 4.4
1.6 2.4
0.9 5.9
2.3
6.3 12.9 11.7
4.3 19.3 16.6 35.9 37.3 30.1 31.9 26.5 23.7
Finished upper
secondary
58.3 61.5 47.2 51.6 77.6 80.9 95.0 95.0 70.1 76.5 49.1 50.3 60.9 60.9 54.7 62.3
Previous work
status
Wage employee
in state firm
26.1 20.1 23.8 18.6 29.7 22.5 35.2 27.0 24.1 16.7 27.7 22.7 33.0 25.5 16.6 12.7
Wage employee
in non-state firm 22.9 25.5 20.3 21.0 28.5 34.2 27.7 40.4 31.6 36.4 16.2 17.3 16.0 19.4 32.7 33.7
Selfemployed in
manufacturing
8.6
Self-employed
in services
15.9 18.9 15.6 19.5 17.2 18.3 13.8 14.9 16.7 20.5 15.3 17.7 11.8 15.4 21.7 23.8
8.7 8.8
9.4 9.0
Own or
collective farm 13.3 14.7 17.8 19.5 5.1
Other
8.2 4.4
4.6 1.3
2.1 7.9
0.7 2.6
8.3 9.1
8.9 7.9
8.5 9.4
2.7 21.7 23.6 18.7 20.4 5.7
13.1 12.2 13.7 11.9 10.6 12.3 17.6 14.9 17.2 15.4 9.9
8.8
6.7
9.8 12.6 10.7 13.8 14.3
Note: 2011 survey. Share of all owners/managers. The category Not finished primary constitutes of owners/
managers with No education and Not finished primary.
Table 8.1 also presents education in relation to firm size and location. The share
of well-educated owners/managers, understood as an owner/manager with an upper
secondary education, increases with firm size and well-educated owners/managers
constitute the majority in both small and medium sized enterprises. The share of welleducated owners/managers is substantial larger in urban areas than in rural areas. In
2011 medium sized firms had no owners/managers with any education. These results are
not that surprising since larger and urban firms more often apply high level technology
- 202 -
and thus needs more skilled managers/owners.

In terms of experience from previous work, Table 8.1 reveals that persons who
were formerly wage employed constitute 45 percent of all owners/managers in 2011.
The share of former wage employed increases with firm size and the pattern is consistent
across years. In contrast, the share of owners/managers who previously worked in
agriculture decreases with firm size and is almost zero in medium sized firms. Also,
from Table 8.1 it appears that owners/managers in firms in the north part of Vietnam
are more likely to have been former wage employee in state owned firms compared to
owner/managers in the south part of Vietnam.
Figure 8.1 shows the basic level of education grouped by the gender of the owner/
manager. 62.1 percent of female owners/managers had finished an upper secondary
education in 2011, which is a slightly larger fraction than for male owners/managers. In
contrast, 30.5 percent of male owners/managers had finished a lower secondary education
compared to 24.9 percent of female owners/managers. From Figure 8.1 it seems as if
the educational level of the owner/manager only slightly differs across gender. The
difference is, however, noteworthy with regards to lower secondary education.
Figure 8.1 Basic Education of Owner/Manager by Gender (%)
61.1 62.1
30.5
1.2 2.1
Not finish primary
7.2
Male
24.9
Female
10.8
Finished primary
Finish lower
secondary
Finish upper
secondary
Note: 2011 survey.
Figure 8.2 shows basic level of educations grouped by formality/informality of

enterprises. The share of owners/managers who have an upper secondary education is
approximately 71 percent for formal firms and only 37.5 percent for informal firms.
Figure 8.2 suggests that the educational level differs considerable between informal
- 203 -
and formal firms. This difference may be explained by the fact that informal firms
are mostly micro firms and, therefore, are less likely to have well-educated owners/
managers as seen in Table 8.1.
Figure 8.2 Basic Education of Owner/Manager by Formal/Informal (%)
71.4
49.1
37.5
Formal
Informal
19.9
7.3
1.4 1.8
Not finish primary
11.6
Finished primary
Finish lower
secondary
Finish upper
secondary
Note: Number of observations: 1,718 formal firms and 709 informal firms.
Basic education of the owner/manager across sectors is presented in Table 8.2.

From this table it appears that rubber producing firms and firms producing fabricating
metal products are more likely to have a well-educated owner/manager compared to
the remaining firms. Across all sectors it seems that the educational level of the owner/
manager has increased between 2009 and 2011.
Table 8.2 Basic education of owner/manager by sector and household firm
Food and
Beverages
Respondent basic
education
Wood
Rubber
Non-metallic Fabricated Furniture,

mineral
metal
etc.
Household
firm
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011
Not finished primary
6.2
2.4
3.4
1.6
5.8
3.8
3.6
1.6
Finished primary
12.7 13.3 8.9 10.0 8.7
8.3
7.8
6.9
6.5 10.4 9.8 12.91 12.33
Finished lower
secondary
35.3 37.3 39.9 35.7 10.1 13.2 32.6
28.4
25.7 23.4 37.2 33.0 38.25 40.33
Finished upper
secondary
45.8 46.9 47.8 52.6 75.4 78.9 55.3
63.8
63.9 68.5 50.6 57.2 43.48
7.9
- 204 -
1.8
5.36
2.15
45.20
8.2 Firm Performance and Survival

In order to relate the owners or managers characteristics with the firms
performance, it is necessary to clarify how firm performance is measured, since this can
be done in various ways. In the following, firm performance is measured by revenue
growth, employment growth, and survival probability. In the previous section it was
discussed why education, work experience and gender is important for firm performance.
Furthermore, Nichter and Goldmark (2009) discuss key determinants associated with firm
growth and emphasize the importance of education, work experience and gender. Based
on this, this section relates those variables to firm growth and survival probability. We
expect educational level and experience from previous work to be positively associated
with firm growth and survival. In contrast, we expect a female owner/manager to be
negatively associated with firm growth.
When investigating determinants of firm growth and survival probability we
following Hansen et al. (2009). Hence, firm growth is measured as annual real revenue
growth between 2009 and 2011 and we create an indicator taking the value one if the
firm has survived between 2009 and 2011. OLS regression and Probit estimation is
performed and the results are presented in Table 8.3. Standard determinants are included
in all regressions (firm size, location, sector, legal ownership, formal status, and firm
age). In addition firm size squared is included to capture diminishing returns to size,
which are a common finding in growth equations. Dummies representing level of
education, previous work experience and gender of owner/manager are included as the
variables of interest.13 Finally, an indicator representing innovative firms is included.
Following Hansen et al (2009) firms are considered to be innovative if they have made
significant improvements of existing products or started production of a new product
since last surveyed.
The results in column (1) of Table 8.3 show that none of the aforementioned
variables of interest enters insignificantly in the regressions. This seems quite surprising
and stand in contrast to what was expected. The insignificance of the parameter
estimate connected to the gender dummy stands in contrast to the results of Goedhuys
& Sleuwaegen (2000). Furthermore, the results are in contrast to the results of Segal
et al. (2009). Segal et al. (2009) conducts an analysis of natural food stores in the U.S.
and show that both education and industry managerial experience of the founder are
13 The regressions are not adjusted for unconfirmed exits.
- 205 -
positively correlated with firm performance. Firm size and age are often negatively
related to firm growth (Jovanovic, 1982; Hansen et al, 2009). Both firm size and firm
age enters negatively and statistically significant in column (1) of Table 8.3 and confirms
the expected inverse relationship.14 Furthermore, the negative sign of the parameter
estimate on firm size is in accordance with various empirical studies (e.g. Mengistae
2006; Hansen et al, 2009).
Table 8.3 also shows that estimated marginal effect from the Probit model
estimating the probability that a randomly drawn firm survives between 2009 and
2011. Again, the dummies indicating educational level, former self-employed and male
owner/manager enters insignificantly. This stands in contrast to the results of Mengistae
(2006). Mengistae (2006) finds entrepreneurial human capital, measured as years of
schooling, to be an important determinant of firm survival. Finally, introduction of a
new product or the improvement of an existing product is positively and significantly
associated with firm survival. This result is also in accordance with the findings of
Hansen et al. (2009). However, this positive association might emerge due to the fact
that firms which introduce or improve products are more capable to respond to market
changes and, therefore, are more likely to survive.
The results from Table 8.3 showed that introduction and improvement of products
is insignificantly related to revenue growth. Nichter and Goldmark (2009) suggest that
poor in developing countries sometimes create survival-oriented firms rather than growth
oriented firms due to lack of alternative employment opportunities. Since introduction
and improvement of products are positively associated with survival in column (2) of
Table 8.3 this might indicate that innovative behavior of Vietnamese SMEs is more
survival-oriented than growth oriented. Hence, this might explain the insignificant
(positive) association between innovations and firm growth observed in Column (1).
14 It should however be noted that larger firms (more than 300 employees) have been excluded from the sample.
- 206 -
Table 8.3 Capabilities, Firm Growth and Survival
(1)
(2)
Dependent variable:
Revenue growth
Survival
Gender of owner/manager (male=1)
-0.049
(-1.60) 0.017
(0.96)
Experience from previous work (Former selfemployed=1)
0.015
(0.47) 0.006
(0.32)
Education level (Finished upper secondary=1)
-0.017
(-0.55) 0.003
(0.15)
Firm size (log)
-0.095*** (-3.81) 0.029**
(2.33)
Firm size squared/100
0.000
(0.41) -0.000*
(-1.79)
Firm age
-0.009**
(-2.08) 0.004
(1.36)
Firm age squared/100
0.020**
(2.46) -0.003
(-0.53)
Introduced new product or improved existing (yes=1)
-0.007
(-0.24) 0.034**
(1.97)
0.058
(0.97) -0.051
(-1.31)
PCC
0.097
(0.97) -0.021
(-0.38)
0.121**
(2.02) -0.024
(-0.78)
Joint Stock
0.233**
(2.29) -0.107*
(-1.66)
Tax code (yes=1)
-0.029
(-0.79) 0.015
(0.56)
Yes
Yes
Province dummies included
Yes
Yes
1823
2454
Notes: Dependent variable: Annual revenue growth in (1) and discrete indicator of survival in (2). OLS estimates
and Probit estimation, marginal effects reported in (2). T-statistics based on robust standard errors in parentheses. *,
**, *** denote significance at a 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively. Reference group for legal status is household
firms. Constant included in all regressions. Balanced panel in (1) and unbalanced panel in (2). Independent variables
are observed in 2009.
Table 8.4 shows OLS regressions made on employee growth between 2008 and
2010. The same variables as those included in Table 8.3 are included in the regressions
in Table 8.4. Furthermore, based on the match employer-employee data, the average
level of worker education is included in column (2) of Table 8.4. The inclusion of this
variable reduces the sample to 449 firms. Hence, the sample is very small and inference
should be done with caution. However, some interesting insight is achieved.
Firstly, the results in column (1) are considered. It appears that a higher educational
level is positively associated with employee growth, however, only significantly at a
10% level. This result is in accordance with Mengistae (2006) who finds that firms
run by entrepreneurs with greater schooling are more likely to survive and have higher
- 207 -
average growth rates. She conducts her analysis based on a data set of manufacturing
firms in Ethiopia and measures a firms growth rate as average annual employment
growth between 1993 and 1995. In column (1) the impact of previous work experience
on employee growth is insignificant. This is also in accordance with the results of
Mengistae (2006). Also, firm size enters significantly and with the expected sign.
Finally, joint stock companies, private firms, PCCs, and limited liability companies are
all positively and significantly associated with employee growth compared to Household
firms (reference category). This corresponds to findings from previous survey rounds.
Secondly, the results from column (2) in Table 8.4 are considered. Most interesting
is the result emerging from the variable indicating the average level of worker education.
This variable enters positively and significantly, which shows that average worker
education is positively correlated with employee growth.
Table 8.4 Capabilities and Employee Growth
Dependent variable:
Experience from previous work (Former selfemployed=1)
Firm size (log)
Firm size squared/100
Firm age
Firm age squared/100
Introduced new product or improved existing (yes=1)
PCC
Joint Stock
Tax code (yes=1)
Average worker education
(1)
Employee growth
(2)
Employee growth
0.035
(0.64)
-0.006
(-0.11)
-0.006
0.083*
-0.410***
0.002***
-0.001
-0.003
0.059
0.713***
0.552***
0.758***
0.139***
-0.169*
Yes
Yes
1823
(-0.11)
(1.79)
(-7.24)
(4.07)
(-0.14)
(-0.21)
(1.28)
(2.82)
(3.89)
(5.02)
(2.74)
(-1.75)
-0.082*
-0.007
-0.283***
0.010
0.002**
-0.005
0.039
0.225*
0.448***
0.192**
0.090
0.081
0.069***
Yes
Yes
449
(-1.70)
(-0.13)
(-5.77)
(0.71)
(2.54)
(-0.71)
(0.80)
(1.76)
(3.48)
(2.10)
(0.62)
(1.16)
(2.86)
Notes: Dependent variable: Growth in number of employees between 2009 and 2011. Independent variables are
observed in 2009. OLS estimates. Balanced panel. T-statistics based on robust standard errors in parentheses.
*, **, *** denote significance at a 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively. Reference group for legal status is
household firm. Constant Included.
- 208 -
8.3 Investment, Innovation and Technology Adoption

The share of firms who made a new investment made up around 56 percent in
2011 and 60 percent in 2009 (not reported). Hence, the proportion of firms taking
on a new investment has declined between the two years. This decline may indicate
that firms are resource constrained in terms of credit. Table 8.5 gives the distribution
of total investments for the different groups of educational level and previous work
status of the owner/manager. An educational level-effect seems to exist, as the share of
firms taking on a new investment is considerable higher for firms with a well-educated
owner/manager. Noteworthy is that owners/managers who are former wage employees
are considerably more inclined to take on new investments than firms with former selfemployed as owner/managers. The majority of investments are made in equipment,
land, buildings, and others whereas the share of investments in R&D and Human
Capital is close to zero. This pattern holds across all levels of education and previous
work categories.15
In terms of improving the quality of the produced products and the labor
productivity of a firm, investments in R&D and Human Capital are expected to have
a positive influence. Even though the share is small, it seems that owners/managers
with either a lower or upper secondary education are more inclined to invest in R&D
or Human Capital compared to owners/managers with no or a low level of education.
15 Brach, Newman, Rand and Tarp (2012) finds that a relatively small fraction of Vietnamese firms actively engage
in R&D and that micro, small, and medium sized firms are statistically significant less likely to undertake R&D
than large firms.
- 209 -
Table 8.5 New Investments (since last survey)
New inv.
(%)
Share of new investment in

Land Buildings Equipment R&D
HC
Others
56.1
2.69
8.67
26.51
0.36
0.24
61.24
Not finish primary

education
48.6
0.00
8.06
32.15
0.00
0.00
59.79
Finish primary education
44.7
2.86
10.86
30.02
0.22
0.00
56.04
Finish lower secondary
49.0
2.46
8.60
26.54
0.74
0.06
61.60
Finish upper secondary
61.2
2.81
8.48
26.02
0.24
0.34
61.67
Wage employee in state

firm
63.5
2.75
9.70
30.39
0.63
0.41
55.43
Wage employee in nonstate firm
63.0
2.53
7.27
28.02
0.30
0.32
61.41
Self-employed in
manufacturing
56.2
2.74
10.73
23.87
0.00
0.03
61.48
Self-employed in
services
51.9
2.18
9.48
19.71
0.32
0.24
68.06
Own or collective farm
49.9
3.01
8.45
28.84
0.00
0.08
59.63
Other
43.6
3.44
7.29
24.43
0.78
0.00
64.05
Total
Basic education
Previous work status
Note: As percent of total investment. Investments in other firms and Patents have been omitted since they constituted
less than one percent. 2011 survey. HC=Human Capital.
Previously in this chapter, the indicator representing innovative firms was found
to be significantly associated with survival in Table 8.2. Also, the level of innovation is
often considered as important to firm growth and survival and is, therefore, highly related
to firm performance (Deng et al, 2012). Hence, this chapter considers the relationship
between innovative firms and the owners/managers capabilities.
Table 8.6 shows that share of firms that invested in new products in 2011. The share
of firms which introduced at least one new product during the considered time period
increased from 2.8 percent in 2009 to 4 percent in 2011. In contrast, the proportion
of firms improving existing products has declined from 41.5 to 38.4 percent in 2011
(numbers for 2009 are not reported). These findings are based on the unbalanced panel
but consistent with results from the balanced panel.
- 210 -
Table 8.6 Innovation and Owners/Managers Education and Experience

Introduced new
product
Improved existing
products
Introduced new
technology
4.0
38.4
13.0
Not finished primary
2.7
24.3
13.5
Finished primary
3.4
27.4
7.2
Finished lower secondary
2.3
27.5
6.7
Finished upper secondary
4.9
45.3
16.7
Wage employee in state enterprise
4.9
39.5
13.5
Wage employee in non-state

enterprise
4.0
45.0
13.9
Self-employed in manufacturing
4.3
33.3
15.7
Self-employed in services
3.7
37.3
12.9
Own or collective farm
2.5
27.2
7.3
Other
4.4
41.6
15.2
Male
3.7
37.6
12.0
Female
4.6
39.8
14.6
97
932
315
Total
Education of respondent
Previous work status of

respondent
Gender
Note: 2011 survey.
Table 8.6 also relates innovation rates to education and previous work experience
of the owner/manager. Well-educated owners/managers are more likely to introduce
new products, and the share of well-educated owners/managers who introduced new
products increased slightly from 3.6 percent in 2009 to 4.9 percent in 2011. This might
be caused by well-educated owners/managers being more likely to be able to handle the
new technology, which might be related to the introduction of a new product. It also
appears that firms managed by former wage employees (both state and non-state) are
more likely to improve an existing product compared to firms managed by former selfemployed. With regards to the introduction of a new product former wage employees
and former self-employed in manufacturing are more likely to do so compared to selfemployed in services or agriculture.
- 211 -
It is common for employees to leave incumbent firms in order to establish new

firms in the same line of business. This is referred to as spin-offs and these firms are
often found to perform relatively well in terms of survival and growth (Hansen et al.,
2009). Results from Table 8.6 indicate that spin-off firms (understood as firms with a
former wage employee as owner/manager) are generally more innovative - especially
in terms of improving existing products.
Table 8.6 also reveals that with regards to new production processes/technologies,
some 13 percent of all firms introduced new production processes/technologies in 2011
compared to 14 percent in 2009. These findings are consistent independent of whether the
balanced and unbalanced panel is considered. As with introduction and improvement of
existing products, an education effect exists: well educated owners/managers are more
likely to introduce new technology. Female owners/managers appear to be (slightly)
more likely to be innovative or introduce new production processes compared to their
male counterparts.
figure 8.3 how Was the adaption carried out
Doanh nghip
iu tra
Nh cung cp
cng ngh
Doanh nghip
khc
Khc
Note: Firms with manager/owner who did not finish primary education has been excluded since they constituted a
share of 1.5 percent (3 firms). 2011 survey.
Out of the 315 firms who introduced a new technology in 2011, 65 percent (205
- 212 -
firms) had to carry out technical adaptation to the equipment. Figure 8.3 reports how
this adaptation was carried out. The enterprise itself is most likely to carry out the
adaptation independent of the educational level of the owner/manager. This may indicate
that the technology introduced is at the same level as the technology in use. Adoption of
more advanced technology would demand additional knowledge and might introduce
further expenditures. Since the survey does not include any indicators of the level of
technology introduced, it is difficult to determine to what extend the firms are upgraded
by the new technology. However, introduction and adaptation of new technology is
important in order to develop new products, improve the quality of already existing
products, and enhance labor productivity. Labor productivity is addressed later in this
chapter and it appears that introduction of new technology is positively associated with
labor productivity.
8.4 Education Level of Workforce
Well-educated owners/managers might tend to hire well-educated employees.
Based on the match employer-employee data (also used in chapter 5 in this report) it is
possible to match the educational level of the owner/manager with the educational level
of the employees. This is done in Table 8.7. From Table 8.7 it appear that well-educated
owners/managers are in fact more likely to hire highly educated workers compared to
their less-educated counterparts. In 2011 the share of workers with a College/University/
Post-graduate degree was 23.6 percent in firms with well-educated owners/managers
compared to 4.8 percent in firms with less-educated owners/managers. Also, the share of
workers with a primary education was 12.2 percent in firms with less-educated owners/
managers compared to 2.7 percent for firms with well-educated managers.
- 213 -
Table 8.7 Education of Workers by Owner/Manager Education
Education level of owner/manager

Did not finished upper
secondary
Finished upper
secondary
None
0.5
0.9
Primary school
12.2
2.7
Secondary school
36.3
15.0
High school
27.9
35.9
Technical certificate/Elementary worker
0.3
3.1
Technical worker without certificate
14.6
9.5
Technical worker/professional secondary
3.4
9.5
College/University/post-graduate
4.8
23.6
Total Number of observations
377
1,046
Education level of worker
Note: Based on the match employer-employee data. Share of total workforce in each category.
It seems reasonable to expect that education teaches the workers skills that make
them more productive and that education increases the ability to learn from previous
experience. Jones (2001) provides evidence that education is highly correlated with
worker productivity in Ghanaian manufacturing and that workers with a high educational
level are more productive. Based on this, findings in Table 8.7 might mean that highly
educated owners/managers have an indirect positive impact on firm performance by the
choice of workforce.
Table 8.8 Social Benefits by Owner/Manager Characteristics
Social
Health
insurance insurance
Unemployment
insurance
Compensates
for accidents

Yes
31.9
32.4
23.8
43.7
No
3.8
4.6
3.0
18.9
Former self-employed
11.6
12.2
8.3
26.6
Former wage-employed
28.8
29.3
21.7
40.6
Note: 2011 survey. Missing observations have been deleted.
Table 8.8 shows the share of firms providing social benefits by owners/managers
characteristics. From Table 8.8 it appears that well-educated owners/managers, besides
- 214 -
from being more inclined to hire highly educated workers, are more likely to provide
social benefits. 32 percent of all owners/managers with an upper secondary education
provided social insurance compared to only 4 percent of their less educated counterparts.
The same tendency exists for former wage employed owners/managers compared to
former self-employed owners/managers. Firms providing these kinds of social benefits
could perhaps more easily attract highly educated workers and thereby increase the
labor productivity of the firm.
8.5 Labor Productivity
Lastly this chapter considers labor productivity. In the following pages we consider
the relationship between labor productivity and the owners/managers educational level,
previously work experience and gender. Labor productivity will be measured in two
different ways: (1) real revenue per full-time employee and (2) real value added per
full-time employee.
According to Table 8.9, the firms with an owner/manager with upper secondary
education have, on average, higher labor productivity than firms with an owner/manager
with a lower educational level. Male headed firms appear to have lower real revenue
per full-time employee and lower real value added per full-time employee compared to
female headed firms. This is in contrast to the findings of Amin (2011) who states that
labor productivity is higher for male than female-owned enterprises.16 Firms with former
self-employee as owner/manager seem, on average, to have lower labor productivity
than firms with former wage employed as owner/manager.
16 These findings are, however, based on informal firms in South America.
- 215 -
Table 8.9 Labor Productivity by Owner/Manager Characteristics
Total
Observations
Measure 1
Measure 2
2,298
87.23
24.40

Yes
1,414
95.15
26.85
No
884
74.56
20.49
970
83.08
23.23
1,328
90.26
25.26
1,462
84.10
23.69
Female
836
92.71
25.66
South
973
87.98
27.00
North
1,325
86.68
22.50

Former self employed
Former wage employed
Gender
Male
Note: 2011 survey.
Table 8.10 shows the results of a simple OLS estimation for determining labor
productivity. All standard variables are included in the regression (firm size, location,
sector and legal ownership). In addition dummies indicating: gender of the owner/
manager, educational level, introduced new technology, and work experience of the
owner/manager, are included. The results confirm to some extend what was expected
based on Table 8.9.
With regards to measure (1) (real revenue per full-time employee) labor
productivity decreases with firm size. The opposite was found in the 2009 survey. The
dummy taking the value one if the owner/manager has finished an upper secondary
education enters positively, however not significant, in column (1). In terms of measure
(2) (real value added per full-time employee) we observe a positive and statistically
significant (at a 10 % level) association between educational level of the owner/manager
and labor productivity. The dummy for male owner/manager enters insignificant in both
specifications.
Furthermore, the introduction of new technology is positively associated with
labor productivity independent on how labor productivity is measured. This association
might, however, be due to reverse causality, meaning that enterprises with a high level
of labor productivity are more likely to introduce new technologies in the production.
- 216 -
In both models household businesses are significantly less productive than their
private counterparts; expect from Private/Collective/Cooperative firms.17 Finally, being
formally registered (having a tax code) are positively associated with labor productivity.
This may be explained by firms being formal are more willing to invest in their workers
with a view to increase productivity. This is in line with the findings of Rand and Torm
(2012a) who also found that becoming officially registered is beneficial for firms and
leads to an increase in profit and investments. In addition, formal firms tend to hire
more educated workers which may explain the positive impact on labor productivity.
Table 8.10 Labor Productivity Regression
Dependent variable: labor productivity (log)

Experience from previous work (Former wage
employee=1)
Firm size (log)
Firm age
Introduced new technology (yes=1)
PCC
Joint Stock
Tax code (yes=1)
(1)
Measure 1
-0.019
-0.003
0.057
-0.126***
-0.005**
0.204***
0.213***
-0.064
0.383***
0.204**
0.333***
Yes
Yes
2,298
(-0.56)
(2)
Measure 2
0.002
(0.09)
(-0.09)
(1.57)
(-5.90)
(-2.57)
(4.13)
(3.36)
(-0.51)
(6.87)
(2.09)
(7.20)
0.011
0.059*
-0.030*
-0.005***
0.129***
0.218***
0.057
0.289***
0.207***
0.298***
Yes
Yes
2,298
(0.40)
(1.96)
(-1.66)
(-3.36)
(3.23)
(4.08)
(0.64)
(6.61)
(2.92)
(7.68)
Notes: OLS estimates. Dependent variable: log labor productivity. Labor productivity is measured by real revenue
per full-time employee (1) and real value-added per full-time employee (2). Real revenue and real value-added are
calculated using provincial GDP deflators. *, **, *** denote significance at a 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.
T-statistics based on robust standard errors in parentheses. Reference group for legal status is household firms.
Constant included in all regressions. Estimations based on observations from 2011.
17 Results on the legal ownership status are consistent with the findings in the report of 2009.
- 217 -
9 Social Networks
This chapter covers various aspects of firms social networks including the size of
firms business network, the composition and diversity of relations, and their effect on
enterprise growth and innovativeness. The analysis is based primarily on the information
provided in the social network part of the SME survey, while incorporating aspects
of firms innovativeness, membership in formal business associations and production
requirements from suppliers and customers, which potentially relate to technology
transfers.
In this chapter, social network capital are seen as an individual asset that benefits
a single firm, where firms derive benefits from knowing others with whom they form
networks of interconnected firms. This is in line with Granovetters work from 1995.
Having an extensive social network is a valuable asset that can help entrepreneurs
obtain access to information and new technologies which may lead to profitable
business opportunities, as well as access to resources (e.g. credit). The literature points
to the role of social networks in helping entrepreneurs overcome obstacles related to
transaction costs (Kranton, 1996; McMillan and Woodruff, 1999), contract enforcement
(Fafchamps, 1998), and regulation (Putman, 1993). Moreover, mutual trust, generated
through long-term relationships with customers and suppliers, may make it easier for
agents to renegotiate contractual obligations, and thereby provide flexibility in dealing
with external shocks (Bigsten et al. 2000).
9.1 Composition of Firms Business Network
Information has been collected on various dimensions of the firms social network.
Table 9.1 document firms network activity, measured as the number of people with
whom the firm has regular contact. Regular contact are defined as a person with whom
the firm interact or meet with at least every 3th months, and that are perceived by the
firm to be useful for the operation of the business. In 2011, a firm on average has 36
people with whom it regularly interacts with. This compares to an average of 41 contacts
in 2009. The number of contacts increases with the size of the firms, and urban-located
enterprises are found to have regular contact with more people. Surprisingly, female
owners have on average more people with whom they have regular contact, some 41
people compared to 33 people for their male counterparts.
Firms where asked to categorize their contacts into five categories, of which two
is related to other entrepreneurs broadly defined as business people within the same
- 218 -
sector and business people in different sectors. The remaining three categories relate
to agents not necessarily involved in business, including bank officials, politicians and
civil servants, and others. Independent of size, firms is more likely to have regular
contact with business people in a different sector than the one they operate in. Not
surprisingly, urban-located enterprises are more likely to have regular contact with bank
officials, politicians and civil servants. Not all micro firms have regular contact with
bank officials, politicians and civil servants, while small and medium-sized enterprises
on average have regular contact with 2 people in each category. The decrease in the total
number of contacts from 2009 to 2011 is attributed to a decrease of business contacts in
the same sector, different sectors and the category other.
Table 9.1 Number of people with whom the firm has regular contact
Firm size
Gender
Micro Small Medium Female
Location
Male
Urban
Rural
Total Total
2011 2009
Total number of contacts 30.36 48.39 50.36
41.29
33.02 50.89
24.92
36.07 40.89
1,667 608
141
891
1,525 1,037
1,379
2,416 2,475
Mean number of
contacts:
Buss. contacts in same

sector
5.73
10.11 9.38
7.78
6.61
10.03
4.80
7.04
11.00
Buss. contacts in
different sector
19.75 29.46 30.59
26.09
20.92 31.28
16.47
22.83 20.15
Bank officials
0.77
1.75
2.19
1.31
0.98
1.36
0.91
1.10
1.33
Politicians and civil

servants
0.98
1.75
1.91
1.33
1.17
1.64
0.92
1.23
1.89
Others
3.13
5.32
6.29
4.77
3.33
6.58
1.82
3.86
6.52
Percent of enterprises with at least one

contact:
Buss. contacts in same

sector
0.93
0.94
0.96
0.94
0.93
0.94
0.92
0.93
0.95
Buss. contacts in
different sector
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
Bank officials
0.38
0.58
0.74
0.45
0.45
0.38
0.50
0.45
0.57

servants
0.51
0.63
0.73
0.58
0.53
0.66
0.47
0.55
0.64
Others
0.89
0.91
0.94
0.91
0.89
0.94
0.84
0.90
0.63
Note: Percentage. Number of observations reported in bold. 11 and 19 missing observations on number of contacts
in 2011 and 2009, respectively. All columns apart from the last report average statistics for 2011.
- 219 -
Table 9.1 also shows the percentage of enterprises with at least one contact in each
category. An entrepreneur, who has contacts in many different groups has access to
information of many different types and is therefore at an advantage over entrepreneurs
with contacts in a few different groups (Burt, 1992). According to Table 9.1, larger
enterprises are more likely to have contacts in different groups compared to smaller
enterprises. In terms of the owners gender, female entrepreneurs are slightly more
diversified with respect to contacts compared to male entrepreneurs, and thus female
owners may have an advantage over male owned firms as they are more likely to interact
with people from different layers in society. Similarly, urban-located firms on average
have a more diversified portfolio of contacts compared to their rural counterparts (urban
firms, on average, have 3.6 different contacts compared to the rural firms that have 3.2
different types of contacts). Noteworthy, however, is that rural enterprises are more
likely to interact with bank officials compared to their urban counterparts: 50 percent
of the rural firms regularly interact with bank officials compared to 38 percent of the
urban located firms. Two explanations can be given: (1) rural enterprises are more likely
to have a CLUR , and thus there they are less likely to be constrained due to lack of
collateral, and (2) credit rationing is less severe in more remote areas, confirming that
the Vietnamese government has tried to use State Owned Commercial Banks (SOCBs)
to alleviate inequalities.
Table 9.2 show the average number of business contacts by the six largest sectors.
Only rubber manufacturing firms have more contacts than the overall average across
all sectors. Wood producers have the least number of contacts. They have half as many
business contacts in different sectors compared to Food and beverages and Rubber
producing firms.
- 220 -
Table 9.2 Average number of contacts by sector
ISIC(4-digit)
Buss.
contacts
in same
sector
15
20
25
5.18
5.01
8.11
Buss.
contacts
in
different
sector
25.22
11.53
24.87
6.37
7.00
5.34
7.04
19.65
18.81
16.08
22.83
Food and beverages

Wood products
Rubber products
26 products
28 Fabricated products
36 Furniture
All sectors (average)
Bank
officials
Politicians
and civil
servants
Others
Total
0.70
0.80
1.53
0.92
0.79
1.48
3.04
1.78
5.68
35.06
19.91
41.67
1.78
0.97
1.15
1.10
1.70
1.31
1.19
1.23
3.81
5.20
2.74
3.86
33.30
33.29
26.50
36.07
Table 9.3 documents the development in firms perception about the most important
group of business contacts. Results are reported by firm size, gender and location. In
both 2009 and 2011, business contacts in different sectors are perceived to be the most
important. Noticeably, the share has increased by 20 percentage points from 65 percent
in 2009 to 85 percent in 2011. The increase is mainly driven by a decline in the share
of firms that think business contracts in the same sector are the most important group
of contacts. Not surprisingly, medium sized firms find contacts to bank officials to be
more important compared to their smaller counterparts.
Table 9.3 Most important group of business contacts
Total
Micro
Small
Medium
Female
Male
Rural
Urban
Buss. contacts
in same sector
2009
25.52
504
24.33
27.73
29.13
24.42
26.11
23.88
27.74
2011
11.53
261
11.68
11.84
8.63
11.36
11.63
10.82
12.43
Buss. contacts
in different
sector
2009 2011
64.51 84.45
1,274 1,911
65.87 84.88
62.5
82.33
58.27 88.49
66.57 84.69
63.4
84.3
64.41 85.36
64.64 83.3
Bank officials
2009
4.41
87
2.84
7.03
10.24
4.65
4.27
3.88
5.12
2011
2.47
56
2.08
3.6
2.16
2.27
2.59
2.86
1.99
Politicians
and civil
servants
2009 2011
0.46
0.35
9
8
0.37
0.39
0.59
0.34
0.79
0,0
0,0
0.24
0.7
0.42
0.44
0.56
0.48
0.1
Note: Percentage. Number of observations reported in bold. Missing variables in both years.
- 221 -
Others
2009
5.11
101
6.59
2.15
1.57
4.36
5.52
7.4
2.02
2011
1.19
27
0.97
1.89
0.72
1.44
1.05
0.4
2.19
Table 9.4 reports the share of total contacts categorized as suppliers, customers,
debtors, creditors and women. If in fact, entrepreneurs rely on their networks to reduce
information asymmetries by facilitating flows of information about previous conduct,
current circumstances and future interventions of their trading partners, debtors
and creditors, the share of contacts in each category may give an indication of their
importance or scarcity. Approximately 30 percent of the firms do not have regular contact
with people categorized as debtors or creditors. This is likely to be explained by the
observations that trade credit is less important in Vietnam compared to many African
countries where trade credit is crucial for firms ability to mitigate unforeseen shocks.
Around 53 percent of the firms report that more than 50 percent of the total number
of contacts is customers. Women constitute around 28 percent of the total number of
contacts on average. The lower fraction of female contacts relative to males is likely to
be due to the fact that women are still underrepresented in the business environment in
Vietnam.
Table 9.4 Share of Contacts by Group
Average
No
contacts
Less than
10%
Between 10
and 24%
Between 25
and 49%
More than
50%
Suppliers
22.59
0.33
19.71
43.95
27.70
8.31
2,357
10
473
1,032
653
189
Customers
49.89
4.59
1.26
9.98
31.66
52.51
2,357
114
30
232
745
1,236
Debtors
12.37
29.50
29.48
24.14
12.82
4.07
2,357
707
685
568
301
96
Creditors
12.37
29.50
29.48
24.14
12.82
4.07
2,357
707
685
568
301
96
Women
28.32
7.76
10.55
34.28
29.14
18.26
2,357
172
258
797
699
431
Note: Percentage. Number of observations in bold. 70 missing observations.
One of the reasons that firms form relationships with others is to economize on
transactions costs, by lowering search and screening costs associated with finding new
suppliers (Kranton, 1996), especially in environments where formal market regulating
institutions are absent (McMillan and Woodruff, 1999). Table 9.3 shows that the vast
majority of SMEs can freely select new suppliers in the market, and that 39 percent on
- 222 -
average identify suppliers through personal contacts. This compares to 50.5 percent of
the enterprises that identify new suppliers based on own search process. Urban located
and smaller firms rely more on personal contacts to identify suppliers. Male and female
owned enterprises are equally dependent on personal contacts in their identification
of new suppliers. While personal contacts are important in the identification process,
personal knowledge of the supplier is relatively unimportant. Thus, less than 2 percent
report that the main criteria for selecting suppliers are that the entrepreneur knows the
supplier personally. Rather, the main criteria for selecting suppliers are competitive
prices and quality standards with 51 and 34 percent, respectively.
Table 9.5 Selection of Suppliers
All
Micro
Small Medium
Female
Male
Rural
Urban
Freely selection of new

suppliers
97.86
98.09
97.71
95.74
97.77
97.91
96.98
99.04
2,375
1,674
612
141
895
1,532
1,389
1,038
39.17
41.65
34.51
29.63
39.24
39.12
37.70
41.09
9.53
9.09
9.88
13.33
10.98
8.68
10.63
8.08
50.46
48.72
54.10
55.56
48.28
51.74
51.08
49.66
How does enterprises identify

suppliers
- Personal contact
- Marketing efforts by
suppliers
- Own search processes
Main criteria for selecting suppliers

- Competitive price
50.80
50.95
51.17
47.41
50.40
51.04 46.64
56.23
- Quality standards
33.78
33.58
34.11
34.81
34.02
33.65
35.82
31.13
- Secure supply
10.01
10.15
9.70
9.63
10.54
9.70
11.42
8.17
- Know supplier
personally
1.60
1.77
1.34
1.48
1.03
1.94
1.87
1.26
Note: Percentage. Number of observations in bold. 3 observations missing on how suppliers are identified, and 7
observations missing on the main criteria for selection.
9.2 Membership in Business Associations

While the main functioning of business association is to provide non-financial
services and represent its members common interests, by lobbying the government
to provide the public good, one may also argue that associations may help firms shape
professional and personal networks because associations offer exposure to new social
contacts, and thus business opportunities.
- 223 -
Table 9.6 Membership in Formal Business Associations
2009
2011
Member of a business associations
All
9.83
7.58
245
184
Micro
3.83
2.93
Small
19.36
14.71
Medium
33.33
31.91
Rural
9.72
7.34
Urban
9.97
7.90
Average number of memberships
All
1.30
1.36
239
184
Pay membership fees
All
88.16
93.44
216
171
Note: Percentage. Number of observations in bold.
Table 9.6 shows that the share of enterprises participating in business associations
has decreased from almost 10 percent in 2009 to 7.6 percent in 2011. This decline is
independent of firm size, however small and medium sized firms are significantly more
likely to be members with 15 and 32 percent in 2011, respectively. Surprisingly, urban
and rural located enterprises are equally likely to participate in business associations. It
is not common to join more than one business association, and thus only 39 firms reports
more than one membership. For the most important associations, some 93 percent paid
membership fees in 2011 compared to 88 percent in 2009. While difficult to ascertain
with the available data, the observed increase may help explain the observed decline in
association membership.
Turning to the question of which manufacturing enterprises that joins a formal
business association, Table 9.7 list the results from a pooled and a random effects probit
model for 2009 and 2011. The usual determinants along with measures of network
activity are included in both estimations. Network variables for the number of contacts
in the same and different sector are constructed based on the following categorization:
(1) less than 5 network partners, (2) more than 4 and less than 10 network partners, (3)
more than 9 and less than 20 network partners, and (4) more than 20 network partners.
Similar, the number of contacts with bank officials, politicians and civil servants are
based on the following categorization: (1) no relations, (2) 1 business relation, (3)
- 224 -
2 business relations, and (4) at least 3 relations.18 Contact diversity is defined as the
number of categories, presented in Table 9.1, within which the firm have at least one
contact.
Table 9.7 Determinants of Membership in Business Associations
Networks
Buss. in same sector

Buss. in different sector
Bank officials
servants
Contact diversity
Firm size (log)
Firm age
Household
Urban
Firm charact.
Owners
charact.
Owners educational level
Owners experience
Gender
Sector
dummies
Year dummy
Observations
Pseudo R-squared
Likelihood-ratio test
Pooled probit
Coefficient
-0.001
-0.004
0.005
t-stat
(-0.34)
(-1.16)
(1.42)
RE probit
Coefficient
-0.008
-0.033
0.092*
t-stat
(-0.16)
(-0.73)
(1.80)
0.011***
-0.002
0.038***
0.001***
-0.048***
-0.036***
(2.78)
(-0.40)
(9.10)
(3.97)
(-3.82)
(-4.87)
0.129**
-0.023
0.538***
0.015***
-0.637***
-0.528***
(2.41)
(-0.35)
(8.16)
(2.76)
(-4.05)
(-3.89)
0.018**
-0.009
0.005
(2.14)
(-1.29)
(0.70)
0.257*
-0.110
0.048
(1.93)
(-1.02)
(0.43)
Yes
Yes
3,740
77.44***
Yes
Yes
3,720
0.227
Note: Column 1: Pooled probit regression using data from 2009 and 2011 only. Column 2: Random effects profit
using data from 2009 and 2011. Dependent variable is membership of business association. Robust standard errors
reported in parenthesis. *, ** and *** indicates significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: Food
processing (ISIC 15).
Summarizing the results we find that only one of the five measures for social
network capital is statistically significant in the pooled probit. Firms with regular
contact to politicians and civil servants have a higher probability of being member
of a business association. This effect remains and become larger when we correct for
unobserved factors affecting membership probability. In addition, contacts with bank
official become significant on a 10 percent level in the random effects probit model.
The positive coefficient estimate indicates that regular interaction with bank officials
18 It should be noted that the different dimensions of network activity are correlate, but only imperfectly so. This
should enable us to ascertain whether certain dimensions are more important than others.
- 225 -
increase the probability of membership. This may be driven by the fact that larger and
more mature enterprises are less likely to be credit constrained. The weak evidence
might suggest that firms do not join business associations to shape professional and
personal networks, and thus members do not have a larger number of contacts compared
with non-members.
Second, according to estimates from column (2), larger enterprises have more
than 50 percent higher probability of being a member than their smaller counterparts.
Third, older firms are more likely to be member of a business association. Fourth, urban
located enterprises and households are less likely to participate in business associations
compared to firms with different ownership structures located in rural areas. Finally,
owners/managers with at least upper secondary education are significantly more likely
to join a formal business association. 19
Table 9.8: Advocacy Support from Business Associations
2009
2011
Received advocacy support
Yes
No
Yes
No
56.73
37.14
62.84
37.16
139
91
115
68
Quality of advocacy support
- Good
48.92
41.74
- Average
43.88
50.43
- Insufficient
4.32
6.96
- Not able to access
2.16
0.87
Note: Percentage. Number of observations in bold.
The main function of business association is to provide non-financial services and

represent the common interest of their members. Table 9.8 reports the number of firms
that have received advocacy support from business associations provided they hold
a membership. In 2011, some 115 firms corresponding to 63 percent of the members
received advocacy support. This compares to 57 percent in 2009. Table 9.6 also lists
the quality of the advocacy support. Some 42 percent of the firms in 2011 reported that
the quality of the support was good, 50 percent that it was average and only 7 percent
thought the advocacy support provided by the business association was insufficient.
19 Owners/managers educational level is included as a dummy variable taking the value one if the owner has a least
finished upper secondary school level.
- 226 -
The quality of the advocacy support by firm size and gender are shown in Figure
9.1 below. In general, female owned enterprises seems to be more satisfied with the
support provided compared to their male counterparts where the vast majority rate the
quality as average. Larger firms are generally more satisfied with the quality of the
advocacy support received compared to micro enterprises. More than 60 percent of the
micro enterprises reports that the quality is average and only a small fraction are not
able to access the support.
figure 9.1 Quality of advocacy support
Good
Average
Insufficient
Not able to asess
Table 9.9 documents the distribution of the firms perceived and actual benefits from
membership. The majority of firms (25 percent) report that the most important reason
for joining were due to associations provision of services concerning communication
of new policies and laws to firms. From column (2) on actual benefits received from
being a member, some 42 percent state that they have received information on new
policies and laws relevant to the firm. Around 19 percent of the membership firms
report that private sector services such as trade fairs, and other reasons were the most
important reason for joining a formal business association. Membership firms were
also asked about the most needed advocacy service.
According to column (3) in Table 9.9, 24 percent state that the most important
advocacy services needed is private sector services, whereas 20 percent report that they
need provision of preferential loans. The later may indicate that firms joining business
associations are more disadvantaged compared to non-members. Unfortunately, we are
- 227 -
not able to test this hypothesis using the present data, and these results should therefore
be interpreted with caution.
Table 9.9 Perceived and actual benefits from membership
Reasons for
joining
Actual
benefits
received
Most needed
advocacy
service
Access to Land
1.64
2.61
7.27
Costs and time to start a business
8.20
6.09
3.03
Labor training
8.20
10.43
10.91
Time and costs of complying with regulations
5.46
2.61
2.42
Authorities solving of problems facing businesses
4.37
2.61
3.64
Private sector services (trade fairs etc.)
19.13
12.17
24.24
Communication of new policies and laws to firms
24.59
41.74
10.30
Provision of preferential loans
5.46
7.83
20.00
Tax relief
3.28
2.61
8.48
Economic arbitration
0.55
2.61
1.21
Other
19.13
8.70
8.48
Observations
183
115
165
9.3 The role of relationships on firm performance and growth

Understanding the role of social networks in market exchange is crucial for
policy, particularly for the design of institutions that support markets. To understand
which functions these institutions must provide, it is useful to examine the role that
relationships play in actual markets and the different channels through which they
assists market exchange. To this effect, we now investigate whether well connected
manufacturing SMEs in Vietnam perform better compared to less well-connected firms.
Table 9.10 present pooled OLS regression estimates of network activity on firm
performance correcting for firm and owner characteristics, location, legal ownership
structure and sector. Firm performance is measured as the logarithm to real value added.
Value added is a measure of the value of the production less the indirect costs and value
of raw materials. In column 1, network activity is measured as the total number of
contacts, contract diversity and association membership. In column 2, the total number
of contacts is divided into four categories: business contacts in the same sector, different
sector, bank officials and politicians and civil servants. Association membership are
- 228 -
included as formal associations may be an effective place to establish working relations

to new suppliers and clients, particularly given the reluctance of owners to change such
relations, once established.
Table 9.10 Network activity on firm performance
Total number of contacts
Coefficient
t-stat
Coefficient
t-stat
Networks
(log)
Bank officials
0.029
(1.61)
0.011
0.008
0.048***
(0.90)
(0.81)
(4.17)
Firm charact.
Owners
servants
Contact diversity
Membership in association
Firm size (log)
Firm age
Urban
0.024**
0.059
1.060***
-0.005***
0.372***
(2.23)
(1.39)
(73.00)
(-4.39)
(15.08)
0.007
0.000
0.052
1.053***
-0.005***
0.392***
(0.59)
(0.00)
(1.23)
(72.21)
(-4.44)
(15.37)
charact.
Ownership

Owners experience
0.065***
-0.001
0.236***
(2.68)
(-0.02)
(5.32)
0.061**
0.000
0.237***
(2.50)
(0.02)
(5.36)
Sector
Coop.
Joint stock company
-0.070
-0.070
0.310***
(-0.97)
(7.97)
(2.11)
-0.071
0.304***
0.118*
(-0.99)
(7.86)
(1.91)
dummies
Year dummy
Observations
Pseudo R-squared
Yes
Yes
3,630
0.826
Yes
Yes
3,630
0.827
Note: Pooled OLS estimates on balanced panel. Dependent variable: Log to value added. *, ** and *** indicates
significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: Households, Food processing (ISIC 15). Constant
included in all regressions.
Summarizing the results we find the following. First, the total number of contacts
is not found to be statistically significant, meaning that higher network activity does not
increase firm performance. This result is in contrast to the results found by Fafchamps
and Minten (2002), examining traders in Madagascar.20 However, performance is found
20 This is also in contrast with the empirical results found by Barr (2000). She examines social capital in terms of
- 229 -
to be positively associated with the number of different contacts a firm have (e.g. higher
network diversity). This is in line with Burt (1992) that emphasizes the importance
of entrepreneurs to be better informed than their competitors through interaction with
different contacts. The empirical results in column 2 show that contacts with bank
officials are positively related to firm performance.
Second, firm size defined as the number of full-time employees is statistically
significant and positively related to performance, while firm age is negatively associated
with performance, indicating that performance increases as firms grow. Third, in terms
of ownership characteristics (e.g. human capital), owners/managers with at least upper
secondary education are likely to experience higher firm performance compared
to owners/mangers with a lower educational level.21 This seems intuitive given that
better educated owners/managers are better equipped to maneuver through the difficult
administrative procedures in for example the credit system and thereby in a better
position to boost the economical outcome and growth of the firm. Fourth, Private/sole
proprietorship, limited liability companies and joint stock companies experience higher
firm performance compared to household enterprises. Finally, firms located in urban
areas generally experience higher performance in terms of value added compared to the
other rural located enterprises.
Table 9.11 presents OLS estimates of network activity on firm growth correcting
for firm and owner characteristics, location, legal ownership structure and sector. Firm
growth is measured in terms of full-time employees and annual real revenue. Enterprise
network activity is tried captured through the inclusion of the total number contacts
the firm has regular contact with, contact diversity, and membership of a business
association.
entrepreneurial networks to determine Ghanaian manufacturing enterprise performance.

21 Owners/managers educational level is included as a dummy variable taking the value one if the owner has a least
finished upper secondary school level.
- 230 -
Table 9.11 Network relations effect on firm growth
Firm growth (size)
Revenue growth
Coefficient
t-stat
Coefficient
t-stat
Networks

(log)
-0.034
(-0.92)
-0.041*
(-1.81)
Contact diversity
0.063***
(3.31)
-0.017
(-1.08)
0.152*
(1.80)
0.039
(0.81)
Firm charact.
Firm size (log)
-0.319***
(-7.31)
-0.092***
(-4.39)
Firm age
-0.002
(-1.39)
0.000
(0.07)
Household
-0.469***
(-4.23)
-0.102**
(-2.01)
Urban
0.147**
(2.24)
0.056
(1.62)
Owners charact.
0.050
(1.21)
-0.015
(-0.47)
Owners experience
0.033
(0.65)
0.033
(1.07)
Gender
0.053
(0.96)
-0.036
(-1.13)
Yes
Yes
Observations
1,910
1,818
Pseudo
R-squared
0.075
0.025
Note: OLS estimates on balanced panel. *, ** and *** indicates significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively.
Base: Food processing (ISIC 15). Constant included in all regressions. Independent variables from 2009.
Summarizing the results we find the following. First, with regard to firms network
activity, there is a statistically significant and negative relationship between the total
number of contacts and revenue growth, indicating that higher network activity depresses
enterprise growth. As for firm performance, contact diversification increase firm growth
measured as the number of full-time employees. Membership of a formal business
association is positively related to firms total sales, but only statistically significant on
a 10 percent level. The positive association between membership and firm growth may
indicate that the advocacy support provided by business associations is beneficial to
SMEs in terms of increase growth.
Second, firm size defined as the number of full-time employees is statistically
significant and negatively related to firm growth, and thus smaller firms tend to experience
larger growth. Third, household firms are less likely to experience high growth rates
compared to their (often) larger counterparts. Finally, in terms of employment growth,
urban located firm growth more rapidly compared to rural located firms.
- 231 -
Table 9.12 Firm growth by type of network relations
Firm growth (size)
Revenue growth
Coefficient
t-stat
Coefficient
t-stat
Networks
0.006
(0.28)
-0.011
(-0.72)
-0.025
(-1.30)
-0.037***
(-2.60)
Bank officials
-0.022
(-1.03)
0.005
(0.35)
Politicians and civil servants -0.013
(-0.49)
0.003
(0.18)
Contact diversity
0.080***
(2.84)
-0.024
(-1.21)
0.157*
(1.88)
0.038
(0.79)
Firm charact.
Firm size (log)
-0.318***
(-7.50)
-0.094***
(-4.46)
Establishment year
-0.003
(-1.50)
-0.000
(-0.07)
Household
-0.472***
(-4.19)
-0.100**
(-1.97)
Urban
0.137**
(2.06)
0.055
(1.54)
Owners charact.
0.051
(1.23)
-0.015
(-0.47)
Owners experience
0.029
(0.59)
0.030
(0.95)
Gender
0.050
(0.89)
-0.038
(-1.19)
Yes
Yes
Observations
1,910
1,818
Pseudo R-squared
0.076
0.025
Note: OLS estimates on balanced panel. *, ** and *** indicates significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively.
Base: Food processing (ISIC 15). Constant included in all regressions. Independent variables from 2009.
Looking into the different types of network activity that affect the growth of the
firm, Table 9.12 decomposes network activity into the number of contacts the firm
have with people in the same sector, with people in different sectors, bank officials
and politicians and civil servants. Summarizing the results, the new empirical evidence
suggests that the observed network effect on revenue growth found in Table 9.10 is
mainly driven by the number of contacts with business people in different sectors. In
terms of the firm growth regression, the coefficient estimates on contact diversity and
association members remains statistically significant, and likewise does the estimates
related to firm characteristics.22
22 Generally speaking, whether these results can be trusted depends on the possibility of endogeneity bias. We try
to minimize this bias by including dependent variables from 2009. Test of endogeneity using panel data or IV estimation is beyond the scope of this rapport. However, the empirical results presented here can be taken as strong
preliminary indications for the importance of social network in markets characterized by high transaction costs and
poor market institutions.
- 232 -
9.4 Diffusion of Information and Innovative Practices

Having established that firms social networks affects performance; we now
investigate one of the channels through which the effect is likely to operate, namely
diffusion of information and innovative practices. In line with the theory, the common
underlying assumption in the literature on within country diffusion is that actors learn
from each other about new technology and innovations (Fafchamps and Sderbom,
2011). One way to obtain information on new technologies, design and modes of
production are through direct product and production requirements from customers
and suppliers. Table 9.13 shows that 7.6 and 4.4 percent of the enterprises receive
specific requirements on modes of production or product specification from customers
and suppliers, respectively. The likelihood of receiving direct product requirements
increases in firm size. Out of the enterprises that receive product requirements, more than
20 percent on average report that these requirements resulted in technology transfers.
Hence, interaction with customers and suppliers may facilitate information flows in the
form of technology transfers, potentially enhancing firm innovativeness and growth.
Table 9.13 Requirements from customers and suppliers
All
Micro
Small
Medium
Requirements from customers
7.58
5.59
10.82
17.14
183
93
66
24
Has requirements resulted in technology transfers?
20.77
18.28
24.24
20.83
38
17
16
Requirements from suppliers
4.39
3.48
5.25
11.43
106
58
32
16
Has requirements resulted in technology transfers?
22.64
20.69
21.88
31.25
24
12
Note: Percentage. Number of observations in bold. 9 missing observations.
Unfortunately, information on the channels through which entrepreneurs acquire

information on new technologies and innovation practices are very limited in the data.
However, it can be argued that potential diffusion increase in the firms networking
activity. The underlying idea is that business owners receive advice on technology
upgrading and institutional innovations from their network partners, and thus a larger
and more diverse network increase the probability that firms learn the effective routines
and competencies shared by other businesses, stimulating prosperity and growth.
- 233 -
Table 9.14 presents ordered probit regression estimates of networking activity on

firms innovativeness correcting for the usual firm and owner characteristics, including
location, legal ownership structure and sector. The dependent variable for firms innovative
level is based on answers to the three questions: (1) Have the firm introduced a new
product? (2) Have the firm improved existing products? and (3) Have the firm introduced
a new technology? Depending on the number of categories within which an enterprise
has innovated, a count variable between 0 and 3 is constructed and used as the dependent
variable. Column (1) includes the total number of contacts, a proxy for contact diversity
and a membership dummy, whereas column (2) decompose the total number of contacts
into the aforementioned network categories (excluding the category others).
Table 9.14 Firm Innovativeness

(log)
Bank officials
Politicians and civil servants
Contact diversity
Business associations
Firm size (log)
Firm age
Networks
Firm charact.
Owners
charact.
Owners experience
Location dummies
Ownership dummies
Observations
Pseudo R-squared
(1)
Coefficient
t-stat
(2)
Coefficient
t-stat
0.188***
0.087***
0.077
0.256***
-0.000
(4.99)
(3.08)
(0.75)
(7.70)
(-0.02)
0.010
0.020
0.046
0.087***
0.045
0.070
0.253***
-0.001
(0.33)
(0.73)
(1.46)
(2.70)
(1.15)
(0.67)
(7.44)
(-0.14)
0.222***
0.046
Yes
Yes
Yes
2,416
0.107
(3.77)
(1.00)
0.216***
0.058
Yes
Yes
Yes
2,416
0.105
(3.66)
(1.09)
Note: Ordered probit. Dependent variable is ****. Robust standard errors reported in parenthesis. *, ** and ***
indicates significance at a 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively. Base: HCMC, Household firm, food processing
(ISIC 15).
Summarizing the results we find the following. First, as expected, network activity
is positively associated with firm innovativeness. The total number of contacts and
contact diversity has a positive and statistically significant effect on firms level of
innovation. Looking at column (2) contact diversity is no longer well-determined. The
- 234 -
positive coefficient estimate in column (1) on the total number of contacts seems to be
driven by contact with bank officials as well as politicians and civil servants (column
2), which have a positive and well-defined impact on firm innovativeness. Second,
firms size measured as the number of full-time employees are positively associated
with innovativeness, suggesting that larger firms are more likely to innovate in multiple
categories simultaneously. Third, owners/managers with at least upper secondary
education are more likely innovate compared to firms owned by owner with a lower
educational level.
In sum, the empirical analysis suggests that networks are important determinants
of enterprises innovativeness and firm performance. Entrepreneurs with a larger and
more diverse set of contacts are found to both perform better and grow faster. Further,
the most important categories both reported by the firms themselves and based on the
empirical analysis are social networks with business people in other sectors and bank
officials. As contacts in the latter category increase in the size of the firm measured by
the number of full-time employees, smaller enterprises may be constrained by their lack
of contacts with bank officials. In this regard, it is likely that this type of social networks
is too expensive or simply inaccessible for the smaller entrepreneurs, thereby providing
unintended and unequal access to resources by micro enterprises. This is confirmed
by the positive and statistically significant coefficient estimate on firm size in all the
empirical analyses, except from the growth regressions.
- 235 -
10 Conclusion
We present below a summary of some of the most important findings from the data
and report.
Around 60 per cent of surveyed enterprises state that the international crisis still had
a negative effect on their doing business conditions in 2011 and only 17 per cent of
enterprises has not (at some point in time) felt the negative effects of the 2007/08 crisis
(reported in either 2009 or 2011). Overall fewer firms in 2011 believe that the negative
effects of the 2007/08 international crisis will be only temporary as compared to 2009.
As in 2009, micro sized firms are less affected by the crisis than their larger counterparts.
Moreover, while fewer firms felt affected by the 2007/08 international crises in the
North in 2011 (57%) as compared to 2009 (65%), firms in the South sensed an increase
in constraints between 2009 (64%) and 2011 (71%). The same trends are observed in the
rural/urban split, with urban firms feeling more constrained by the international crisis in
2011 as compared to 2009 and rural firms feeling less constrained over the same period.
The annual survival rate between 2009 and 2011 increased to 92.2 per cent from a figure
of 91.6 per cent observed between 2007 and 2009. Urban centers like Ha Noi and HCMC
experienced above average exit rates. Also Lam Dong showed above average exit rates.
Moreover, firms in Apparel had an above average probability of exiting, which may
point to some competitiveness concerns for this particular sector.
Employment growth between 2009 and 2011 was especially pronounced in the old Ha
Tay area, whereas firms in Nghe An saw decreases in average employment. Moreover,
employment growth was particularly seen in leather production, whereas shrinking
sectors in terms of employment were textiles and rubber.
The business environment appears to have improved, although (as in 2009) few firms
are facing no constraints. Access to credit remains (according to business owners) one
of the most serious problems, although improvements are observed between 2009 and
2011. However, the formal debt share remains low in Vietnamese SMEs, even though
access to formal loanable funds has increased.
As in 2009, firms are increasingly moving into the formal sector. Over 20 per cent of
the firms not formally registered in 2009, had obtained a business registration license
(and a tax code) by 2011. Moreover, contrary to the findings in 2009, there is evidence
of formalization having a positive employment growth effect. As such the government
- 236 -
should continue to pursue its current formalization policies. However, looking at

survival probabilities there is no significant difference between registered and informal
firms.
More firms are making informal payments in 2011 than in 2009, and as in 2009 the
results show that formality and increases in the probability of paying bribes go handin-hand. An analysis of the purpose of the informal payment increasingly goes to
dealing with taxes and tax collectors as well as getting connected to public services/
utilities. Finally, the data highlight that firms paying bribes have a higher probability
of exit, which provides the strong message to SMEs that bribe payments will not keep
you alive in the longer run, which is opposite to the general perception. An information
campaign on the highly negative features of bribe payments may be necessary to reduce
the informal payments pressure both from the demand and supply side of the problem.
The average enterprise is relatively specialized and fewer firms diversified in 2011 as
compared to 2009, and medium firms are more diversified than their micro counterparts.
As such, product diversification does not seem to be a risk reduction tool of Vietnamese
manufacturing SMEs. However, more firms developed a new product in 2011 as compared
to 2009, whereas the number of firms improving existing products declined over time.
Especially rural small firms are driving this decline. Results show that this latter decline
could be a problem for future dynamics as innovation through the improvement of
existing products is positively related to firm performance, and increasing policy focus
should be given to the improvement of the innovative capacity of SMEs.
Labor productivity has increased significantly between 2009 and 2011, and the increase
is especially driven by micro and small enterprises. Urban located enterprises have a
higher level of labor productivity compared to their rural counterparts. Especially the
food and beverage sector has seen significant labor productivity increases between 2009
and 2011, but given that the median labor productivity growth rates are above one in
all sectors highlight the significant overall improvements in labor productivity among
Vietnamese SMEs. However, the variation across firms is large; 40 percent of the firms
experienced negative labor productivity growth between 2009 and 2011. An increased
policy focus should be given to this large pool of bad performers, if Vietnam is to
follow a sustained and inclusive employment growth path/pattern.
The share of enterprises investing has declined since 2009, and it is especially smaller
urban firms in the south that has contributed to this decline. The average amount of the
- 237 -
investment financed by retained earnings has increased as compared to 2009, and 8.4
percent of investments are financed by informal loans. Although the investment decline
is small, investment policies could be designed to address the declining investment trend
coupled with an increasing shift towards the use of informal credit sources among SMEs
in the urban South.
Around 39 percent of enterprises can be considered credit constrained. This number
is similar to the observation in 2009. Twice as many firms obtain informal loans as
compared to formal ones, and almost 90 percent of the constrained group (in formal
credit markets) has access to loans from informal sources. Remembering that informal
loans only finance 8 to 9 percent 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. However, policies should reflect
that informal credit sources cannot (and should not) assure a sustained investment led
inclusive growth path for SMEs.
Since 2009, there has been an increase in the labor force share of regular workers, and a
corresponding decline in the proportion of casual workers. 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 therefore indicate a recovery from the global economic crisis
and generally more optimism.
As in 2009, 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 labor
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 levels of the owner and manager is positively related to firm growth.
Moreover, there is an indication of average level of worker education also being
positively correlated with employee growth, as well as 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. With regard to the
empowerment of workers, those employed in larger firms benefit relatively more from
firm gains through a higher wage. Finally, with the exception of the provision of sick
leave payments, the provision of all types of benefits has increased since 2009, on
- 238 -
average. As such the data seem to confirm that the education and remuneration policies
focusing on the empowerment of workers are starting to work, even for smaller SMEs.
Understanding the role of social networks in market exchange is crucial for policy,
particularly for the design of institutions that support markets. The analysis shows that
networks are important determinants of enterprises innovativeness and firm performance.
Entrepreneurs with a larger and more diverse set of contacts are found to both perform
better and grow faster. As important network contacts are increasing in firm size,
smaller SMEs are relatively less able to reap the network related benefits. It is likely
that the beneficial types of social networks are too expensive or inaccessible for the
smaller entrepreneurs, thereby providing unintended and unequal access to resources
by micro enterprises. Policies aimed at ensuring an equal playing field also in relation
to social network access may help ensure the governments pursuit for inclusive growth.
The positive relationship between business association membership and firm growth
may indicate that the advocacy support provided by business associations is beneficial
to SMEs and improving and promoting access of the smaller segment of SMEs may
provide beneficial overall externalities.
- 239 -
References
Amin, M. (2011), Labor Productivity, Firm-size and Gender: The Case of Informal
Firms in Argentina and Peru, World Bank Group Enterprise Note No. 22
Barr, A.M. (2000). Social Capital and Technical Information Flows in the Ghanaian
Manufacturing Sector, Oxford Economic Papers, 52, 539-559.
Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B. & Lawrence, R. Z. (1995),Exporters, Jobs, and Wages
in U.S. Manufacturing: 1976-1987, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.
Microeconomics, pp. 67-119
Bigsten, A.P. et al. (2000). Contract Flexibility and Dispute Resolution in African
Manufacturing, Journal of Development Studies, 36(4), 1-37.
Brach, J., Newman, C., Rand, J. and Tarp, F. (2012), Firm-Level Competitiveness
and Technology in Vietnam: Evidence from a survey in 2010, CIEM
Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes. The Social Structure of Competition, Cambridge
MA, Harvard University Press.
CIEM (2007) Characteristics of the Vietnamese Business Environment: Evidence
from a SME Survey in 2005. CIEM report, Hanoi, available for downloading at http://
www.ciem.org.vn/home/en/home/index.jsp
Deng, Z., Hofman, P. and Newman, A. (2012), Ownership concentration and
product innovation in Chinese private SMEs, Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
forthcoming.
DNEAP (2006) Enterprise Development in Mozambique: Results Based on
Manufacturing Surveys Conducted in 2002 and 2006. DNEAP discussion paper 33E2006, available for downloading at http://www.mpd.gov.mz/gest/publicat.htm
Fafchamps, M. (1992). Solidarity Networks in Preindustrial Societies: Rational
Peasants with a Moral Economy, Economic Development and Cultural Change,
41(1), 147-174.
- 240 -
Fafchamps, M. and Minten, B. (2001). Returns to social network capital among

traders, Oxford Economic Papers, 54, 173-206.
Fafchamps, M. and Sderbom, M. (2011). Network Proximity and Business Practices
in African Manufacturing, CSAE Working Paper
Fletschner, D. (2009), Rural Womens Access to Credit: Market Imperfections and
Intrahousehold Dynamics, World Development, 37(3), 618631.
Granovetter, M. (1995). Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers, 2nd
edition, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Goedhuys, M. and Sleuwaegen, L. (2000), Entrepreneurship and growth of
entrepreneurial firms in cote dIvoire, Journal of Development Studies, 36(3), 123145.
GSO (2004) Results of Establishment Census of Vietnam 2002: Volume 2 Business
Establishments. Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi.
GSO (2007) The Real Situation of Enterprises: Through the Results of Surveys
Conducted in 2004, 2005, 2006. Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi.
Hansen, H., Rand, J. and Tarp, F. (2009): Enterprise Growth and Survival in Vietnam:
Does Government Support Matter?, Journal of Development Studies, 45(7), 10481069.
Hering, L. and Poncet, S. (2010), Market access and individual wages: evidence
from China, Review of Economics and Statistics, February 2010, 92(1), 145-159.
ILO (2010). Global Wage Report 2010/11. International Labour Office: Geneva.
Jones, P. (2001), Are educated workers really more productive?, Journal of
Development Economics, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp. 57-79,
Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the Evolution of Industry. Econometrica 50(3),
649-670.
Kranton, R. (1996). Reciprocal Exchange: A Self-Sustaining System, American
Economic Review, 86(4), 830-851.
Laplante, B. (2006). Review of Implementation of Decree 67/2003 on Environmental
Protection Charges for Waste Water in Viet Nam. Draft report submitted to the United
Nations Development Program on May 5, 2006.
Larsen, A.F., Rand, J. and Torm, N. (2011). Do Recruitment Ties Affect Wages?
An Analysis Using Matched Employer-Employee Data from Vietnam, Review of
Development Economics, 15(3), 541555.
- 241 -
Liedholm, C. and Mead, D.C. (1999). Small Enterprise and Economic Development.
The Role of Micro and Small Enterprises, Routledge Studies in Development
Economics. Routledge, London and New York.
Liu, A.Y.C. (2004), Changes in Gender Wage Gap in Vietnam, Journal of
Comparative Economics, 32, 586596.
McMillan, J. and Woordruff, C. (1999). Interfirm Relationships and Informal Credit
in Vietnam, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1258-1320
Mengistae, T. (2006), Competition and entrepreneurs human capital in small
business longevity and growth, Journal of Development Studies, 42(5), 812-836.
Nichter, S. and Goldmark, L. (2009), Small Firm Growth in Developing Countries,
World Development, 37(9), 14531464.
Putman, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy,
Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press.
Rand, J. (2007) Credit Constraints and Determinants of the Cost of Capital in
Vietnamese Manufacturing, Small Business Economics, 29, 1-13.
Rand, J. and Tarp, F. (2011), Does Gender Influence the Provision of Fringe Benefits?
Evidence From Vietnamese SMEs, Feminist Economics, 17(1), 59-87.
Rand, J. and Tarp, F. (2012), Firm Level Corruption in Vietnam, Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 60(3), 571-595.
Rand, J. and Torm, N. (2012a), The Benefits of Formalization: Evidence from
Vietnamese Manufacturing SMEs, World Development, 40(5), 983998.
Rand, J. and Torm, N. (2012b), The Informal Sector Wage Gap Among Vietnamese
Micro Firms, Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen.
Segal, G., Borgia,D., and Schenfeld, J. (2009). Founder human capital and small firm
performance: an empirical study of founder-managed natural food stores, Journal of
Management Research, 4, 1-10.
Sderbom, M., Teal, F. and Wambugu, A. (2005), Unobserved Heterogeneity and
the Relation Between Earnings and Firm Size: Evidence from Two Developing
Countries, Economics Letters, 87, 15359.
Sutton, J. (2005), Competing in Capabilities: An informal Overview, Based on his
Clarendon lecture of 2004, London School of Economics.
Torm, N. (2011), The Union Wage Gap Among Vietnamese SMEs, Working Paper,
Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen.
- 242 -
Vu, V.H. (2012), Does export participation affect wages and employment quality?
The case of Vietnamese SMEs, Economics department, Waikato University
The World Bank (IFC) (2012), Women, Business and the Law, World Bank
- 243 -

2011 SME Report - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011 SME Report - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C IM MI TRNG

KINH DOANH VIT NAM

CIEM, DoE, ILSSA v UNU-WIDER

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Bng 5.3 Ma trn chuyn dch a dng ha v ci tin................................................... 37

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Bng 8.7 Hc vn ca ngi lao ng theo hc vn ca ch s hu/ngi qun l.......... 90

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Giy chng nhn ng k kinh doanh

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

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

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Bng 1.1 trnh by t l tng t cc doanh nghip b tc ng bi khng hong

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Bng 1.2 Ma trn chuyn dch khng hong

Khng hong Khng

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

Ghi ch: Mu cn bng (1.999 quan st hng nm)

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Bng 1.4 Khng hong th gii hin ti mang li nhng c hi tch cc

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n.

Nhng kt qu ny cho thy phn ln cc DNNVV u nhn thc rng khng

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Mu ban u c chn t tng mu nm 2005 ca cc doanh nghip ch bin

Ghi ch: Mu cn bng bao gm 1.999 quan st mi nm.

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Cn lu rng s liu ca iu tra DNNVV bao gm c cc doanh nghip h

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

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

Bng 2.4 S lng doanh nghip theo a phng v ngnh

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Bng 2.4 tp trung m t cc doanh nghip theo a bn v ngnh ngh. M ngnh

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Nh cp trn, Bng 2.6 cho thy 67% s doanh nghip trong mu l cc

AGR Nng nghip

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Bng 2.7 S doanh nghip theo hnh thc s hu php l v quy m

C s/doanh nghip h gia nh

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

2.2 Thc hin iu tra

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

2.3 Lin kt vi cc cuc iu tra trc

Tng s c iu tra nm 2011

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

3 Tng trng v nng ng doanh nghip

Thay i t 2009 n 2011

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Bng 3.1 nu r rng c s thay i ln quy m ca cc doanh nghip theo thi

Ghi ch: Phn trm trong ngoc n

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

ng ton b thi gian. Ngc li, cc DNNVV c chn mu ti Hi Phng v H

c im mi trng kinh doanh vit nam

Sn phm thc phm v ung

Giy v cc sn phm giy

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

Sn phm ha hc, v.v

-0,077* (-9,81) -0,089*