Thông tin siêu dữ liệu biểu ghi
Trường DC Giá trịNgôn ngữ
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, Khac Minh
dc.contributor.otherPhung, Thi Lan
dc.contributor.otherPham, Van Khanh
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-01T10:24:03Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-01T10:24:03Z-
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.isbn1950-0020
dc.identifier.urihttps://dlib.neu.edu.vn/handle/NEU/58672-
dc.descriptionpersonnel management
dc.description.abstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to measure TFP growth and job reallocation in the Vietnamese manufacturing industry after the Doimoi period. Design/methodology/approach – The study uses firm-level panel data from Vietnam’ s annual enterprise survey data for 2000–2016 period in the Vietnamese manufacturing industry using Olley–Pakes static and dynamic productivity decomposition methods. Findings – The aggregate product ivity estimated from the WRD method increased 2.323 percent , of which over 40 percent is due to the real location toward more productive firms. Olley–Pakes dynamic decomposition according to owner ship, scale and industry shows that the contribution of private and state-owned firms and the contribution of small and medium firms and large firms to the TFP growth are 133,−33 percent, 58.56 and 41.44 percent, respectively.The within - firm productivity and net entry components are the main reasons for TFP growth rather than real location.The results show that the composition of the aggregate TFPs ,estimated from WRDG, OP, LP and ACF, is correlated very high (over 80 percent) except for net entry components. Research limitations/implications – The major limitation of this study is that the authors compute an aggregate productivity index using actual employment-based shares (still misallocation in labor), rather than optimal employment-based shares (no misallocation in labor). Originality/value – Job reallocation between industries is attracting attention in developing countries, especially transition economies. However, knowledge about job reallocation among industries is limited. This paper assesses the level of job reallocation among private and state-owned firms, small and medium firms and large firms in Vietnam.
dc.description.tableofcontents1. Introduction; 2. Methodology; 3. Empirical research results; 4. Conclusion
dc.format.extentKhổ 21 x 29.7
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherKinh Tế Quốc Dân
dc.subjectVietnam
dc.subjectManufacturing industry
dc.subjectJob reallocation
dc.subjectPrivate- and state-owned firms
dc.subjectSmall and medium firms and large firms
dc.titleProductivity growth and job reallocation in the Vietnamese manufacturing sector
dc.typeJournal of Economics and Development
dc.identifier.barcode10-1108_JED-07-2019-0019
dc.relation.referenceAckerberg, D.A., Caves, K. and Frazer, G. (2006), “Structural identification of production function”, MPRA paper, University Library of Munich, Munich. Aw, B.Y., Chen, X. and Roberts, M.J. (2001), “Firm-level evidence on productivity differentials and turnover in Taiwanese manufacturing”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 66, pp. 51-86. Bartelsman, E., Haltiwanger, J. and Scarpetta, S. (2013), “Cross-country differences in productivity: the role of allocation and selection”, American Economic Review, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 305-334. Bilsen, V. and Konings, J. (1998), “Job creation and job destruction and employment growth in newly established firms in transition countries: survey evidence from Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary”, Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 429-445. Bojnec, S., Konings and Jozef (1998), “Job creation, job destruction and labour demand in Slovenia”, LLICOS Discussion Paper No. 74, Leuven. Bond, S. and Soderbom, M. (2005), “Adjustment costs and the identification of Cobb-Douglas production functions”, Institute for Fiscal Studies Working Paper Series No. W05/04, London. Collard-Wexler, A. and Loecker, J.D. (2015), “Reallocation and technology: evidence from the US steel industry”, American Economic Review, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 131-171. Davis, S.J. and Haltiwanger, J.C. (1992), “Gross job creation, gross job destruction, and employment reallocation”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 819-863. Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. and Krizan, C.J. (2001), “ Aggregate productivity growth: lessons from microeconomi c evidence” , New Developments in Productivity Analysis, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Cambridge, MA, pp. 303-363. German, C., Anson, T.Y., Kim, P.H. and David, J.C. (2011), “Reallocation, productivity, and the Ecuadorian economic crisis”, discussion paper, Bank of Canada, Ottawa. Jovanovich (1982), “Selection and the evolution of industry”, Econometrica, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 649-670. Lan, P.M. and Minh, N.K. (2018), “Reallocation and technology diffusion, competition: expanding Olley-Pakes statistic and dynamic decomposition”, Journal of Economics and Development, No. 254, pp. 40-49. Levinsohn, J. and Petrin, A. (2003), “Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 317-341. Loecker, D. and Konings, J. (2006), “Job reallocation and productivity growth in apost-socialist economy: evidence from Slovenian manufacturing”, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 388-408. Melitz, M.J. (2003), “The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity”, Econometrica, Vol. 71 No. 6, pp. 1695-1725. Melitz, M.J. and Polanec, S. (2015), “Dynamic Olley-Pakes productivity decomposition with entry and exit”, Journal of Economics, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 362-375. Olley and Pakes (1996), “The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry”, The Econometric Society, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 1263-1297. Wooldridge, J.M. (2009), “On estimating firm-level production functions using proxy variables to control for unobservables”, Economics Letters, Vol. 104 No. 3, pp. 112-114
Bộ sưu tập
02. Tạp chí (Tiếng Anh)


Ảnh bìa
  • 10-1108_JED-07-2019-0019.pdf
    • Dung lượng : 199,66 kB

    • Định dạng : Adobe PDF

    • Views : 
    • Downloads : 
  • Biểu ghi đơn giản Thống kê truy cập Open App

    Tải ứng dụng đọc sách

    (Lưu ý: Sử dụng ứng dụng NEU Book Reader để xem đầy đủ tài liệu.
    Bạn đọc có thể tải NEU Book Reader từ App Store hoặc Google play
    với từ khóa "NEU Book Reader")



    Thông tin siêu dữ liệu biểu ghi
    Trường DC Giá trịNgôn ngữ
    dc.contributor.authorNguyen, Khac Minh
    dc.contributor.otherPhung, Thi Lan
    dc.contributor.otherPham, Van Khanh
    dc.date.accessioned2023-11-01T10:24:03Z-
    dc.date.available2023-11-01T10:24:03Z-
    dc.date.issued2019
    dc.identifier.isbn1950-0020
    dc.identifier.urihttps://dlib.neu.edu.vn/handle/NEU/58672-
    dc.descriptionpersonnel management
    dc.description.abstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to measure TFP growth and job reallocation in the Vietnamese manufacturing industry after the Doimoi period. Design/methodology/approach – The study uses firm-level panel data from Vietnam’ s annual enterprise survey data for 2000–2016 period in the Vietnamese manufacturing industry using Olley–Pakes static and dynamic productivity decomposition methods. Findings – The aggregate product ivity estimated from the WRD method increased 2.323 percent , of which over 40 percent is due to the real location toward more productive firms. Olley–Pakes dynamic decomposition according to owner ship, scale and industry shows that the contribution of private and state-owned firms and the contribution of small and medium firms and large firms to the TFP growth are 133,−33 percent, 58.56 and 41.44 percent, respectively.The within - firm productivity and net entry components are the main reasons for TFP growth rather than real location.The results show that the composition of the aggregate TFPs ,estimated from WRDG, OP, LP and ACF, is correlated very high (over 80 percent) except for net entry components. Research limitations/implications – The major limitation of this study is that the authors compute an aggregate productivity index using actual employment-based shares (still misallocation in labor), rather than optimal employment-based shares (no misallocation in labor). Originality/value – Job reallocation between industries is attracting attention in developing countries, especially transition economies. However, knowledge about job reallocation among industries is limited. This paper assesses the level of job reallocation among private and state-owned firms, small and medium firms and large firms in Vietnam.
    dc.description.tableofcontents1. Introduction; 2. Methodology; 3. Empirical research results; 4. Conclusion
    dc.format.extentKhổ 21 x 29.7
    dc.language.isoen
    dc.publisherKinh Tế Quốc Dân
    dc.subjectVietnam
    dc.subjectManufacturing industry
    dc.subjectJob reallocation
    dc.subjectPrivate- and state-owned firms
    dc.subjectSmall and medium firms and large firms
    dc.titleProductivity growth and job reallocation in the Vietnamese manufacturing sector
    dc.typeJournal of Economics and Development
    dc.identifier.barcode10-1108_JED-07-2019-0019
    dc.relation.referenceAckerberg, D.A., Caves, K. and Frazer, G. (2006), “Structural identification of production function”, MPRA paper, University Library of Munich, Munich. Aw, B.Y., Chen, X. and Roberts, M.J. (2001), “Firm-level evidence on productivity differentials and turnover in Taiwanese manufacturing”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 66, pp. 51-86. Bartelsman, E., Haltiwanger, J. and Scarpetta, S. (2013), “Cross-country differences in productivity: the role of allocation and selection”, American Economic Review, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 305-334. Bilsen, V. and Konings, J. (1998), “Job creation and job destruction and employment growth in newly established firms in transition countries: survey evidence from Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary”, Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 429-445. Bojnec, S., Konings and Jozef (1998), “Job creation, job destruction and labour demand in Slovenia”, LLICOS Discussion Paper No. 74, Leuven. Bond, S. and Soderbom, M. (2005), “Adjustment costs and the identification of Cobb-Douglas production functions”, Institute for Fiscal Studies Working Paper Series No. W05/04, London. Collard-Wexler, A. and Loecker, J.D. (2015), “Reallocation and technology: evidence from the US steel industry”, American Economic Review, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 131-171. Davis, S.J. and Haltiwanger, J.C. (1992), “Gross job creation, gross job destruction, and employment reallocation”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 819-863. Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. and Krizan, C.J. (2001), “ Aggregate productivity growth: lessons from microeconomi c evidence” , New Developments in Productivity Analysis, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Cambridge, MA, pp. 303-363. German, C., Anson, T.Y., Kim, P.H. and David, J.C. (2011), “Reallocation, productivity, and the Ecuadorian economic crisis”, discussion paper, Bank of Canada, Ottawa. Jovanovich (1982), “Selection and the evolution of industry”, Econometrica, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 649-670. Lan, P.M. and Minh, N.K. (2018), “Reallocation and technology diffusion, competition: expanding Olley-Pakes statistic and dynamic decomposition”, Journal of Economics and Development, No. 254, pp. 40-49. Levinsohn, J. and Petrin, A. (2003), “Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 317-341. Loecker, D. and Konings, J. (2006), “Job reallocation and productivity growth in apost-socialist economy: evidence from Slovenian manufacturing”, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 388-408. Melitz, M.J. (2003), “The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity”, Econometrica, Vol. 71 No. 6, pp. 1695-1725. Melitz, M.J. and Polanec, S. (2015), “Dynamic Olley-Pakes productivity decomposition with entry and exit”, Journal of Economics, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 362-375. Olley and Pakes (1996), “The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry”, The Econometric Society, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 1263-1297. Wooldridge, J.M. (2009), “On estimating firm-level production functions using proxy variables to control for unobservables”, Economics Letters, Vol. 104 No. 3, pp. 112-114
    Bộ sưu tập
    02. Tạp chí (Tiếng Anh)


    Ảnh bìa
  • 10-1108_JED-07-2019-0019.pdf
    • Dung lượng : 199,66 kB

    • Định dạng : Adobe PDF

    • Views : 
    • Downloads :