Government Support and Firm Profitability in Vietnam

Thanh Minh Nguyen; Tuyen Quang Tran; Long Thanh Do

doi:10.2478/cer-2018-0029

Authors

Thanh Minh Nguyen Ph.D., Faculty of Accounting, Academy of Finance; Hanoi, Vietnam
Tuyen Quang Tran Ph.D., Center for Data and Socio‑Economic Analysis, University of Economics and Business, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam
Long Thanh Do The Office of National Science and Technology Programs, Ministry of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/cer-2018-0029

Keywords:

government support, profitability, quantile approach, SMEs

Abstract

Existing studies on the linkage between government subsidies and firm financial performance often use a mean regression approach and focus mainly on developed countries. To fill the gap, this study, for the first time, considers the impact of government support activities on the profitability of manufacturing SMEs in a developing country, Vietnam. Using an unbalanced panel dataset covering the period 2009–2015, government financial supports show an insignificant linkage with firm profitability when using OLS. However, a fixed‑effect quantile approach reveals that government financial support is negatively related for firms with low profit but is positively related for firms in the high profitability percentile. Our findings also suggest that policymakers should focus on helping start‑ups instead of ineffective, informal firms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bergström, F. (2000), Capital subsidies and the performance of firms, ʽSmall business economics ʼ, 14(3), 183–193.

Buchinsky, M. (1994), Changes in the US wage structure 1963–1987: Application of quantile regression. Econometrica, ʽJournal of the Econometric Societyʼ, 405–458.

Cameron, A.C., & Trivedi, P.K. (2009), Microeconometrics using stata (Vol. 5). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Canay, I.A. (2011), A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data, ʽThe Econometrics Journalʼ, 14(3), 368–386.

CIEM. (2010). Characteristics of the Vietnamese business environment: Evidence from an SME survey in 2009. CIEM, Hanoi.

Coad, A., Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2016), Innovation and firm growth: Does firm age play a role?, ʽResearch Policyʼ, 45(2), 387–400.

Esteve‑Pérez, S., Mánez‑Castillejo, J.A., & Sanchis‑Llopis, J.A. (2008), Does a “survival‑by‑exporting” effect for SMEs exist? ʽEmpiricaʼ, 35(1), 81–104.

Fryges, H., & Wagner, J. (2010), Exports and profitability: First evidence for German manufacturing firms, ʽThe World Economyʼ, 33(3), 399–423.

Hansen, H., Rand, J., & Tarp, F. (2009), Enterprise growth and survival in Vietnam: does government support matter?, ʽThe Journal of Development Studiesʼ, 45(7), 1048–1069.

Joshi, A., Prichard, W. & Heady, C. (2013), Taxing the informal economy: Challenges, possibilities and remaining questions. IDS Working Papers.

Kizhakethalackal, E.T., Mukherjee, D., & Alvi, E. (2013), Quantile regression analysis of health‑aid and infant mortality: a note, ʽApplied Economics Lettersʼ, 20(13), 1197–1201.

Loayza, N.V. (1997), The economics of the informal sector: a simple model and some empirical evidence from Latin America. Policy Research Working Paper WPS 1727, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/685181468743710751/The‑economics‑of‑the‑informal‑sector‑a‑simple‑model‑and‑some‑empirical‑evidence‑from‑Latin‑America

McKenzie, D., & Sakho, Y.S. (2008), Does it pay firms to register for taxes? The impact of formality on firm profitability, The World Bank.

Nguyen, T.T., & van Dijk, M.A. (2012), Corruption, growth, and governance: Private vs. state‑owned firms in Vietnam, ʽJournal of Banking & Financeʼ, 36(11), 2935–2948.

Pergelova, A., & Angulo‑Ruiz, F. (2014), The impact of government financial support on the performance of new firms: the role of competitive advantage as an intermediate outcome, ʽEntrepreneurship & Regional Developmentʼ, 26(9–10), 663–705.

Rand, J. (2009), Understanding firm‑level corruption in Vietnam: Economics Department, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Rand, J. & Torm, N. (2012), The benefits of formalization: Evidence from Vietnamese manufacturing SMEs, ʽWorld Developmentʼ, 40(5), 983–998.

Ranjan, P., & Raychaudhuri, J. (2011), Self‑selection vs. learning: Evidence from Indian exporting firms, ʽIndian Growth and Development Reviewʼ, 4(1), 22–37.

Tran, T.B., Grafton, R.Q., & Kompas, T. (2008), Firm efficiency in a transitional economy: Evidence from Vietnam, ʽAsian Economic Journalʼ, 22(1), 47–66.

Tsou, M.‑W., Liu, J.‑T., Hammitt, J.K., & Wang, K.‑H. (2008), Exporting and productivity growth: Evidence from the Taiwan electronics plants, ʽScottish Journal of Political Economyʼ, 55(2), 190–209.

Vu, H., Holmes, M., Lim, S., & Tran, T. (2014), Exports and profitability: a note from quantile regression approach, ʽApplied Economics Lettersʼ, 21(6), 442–445.

Vu, V.H., Tran, T.Q., Van Nguyen, T., & Lim, S. (2018), Corruption, types of corruption and firm financial performance: New evidence from a transitional economy, ʽJournal of Business Ethicsʼ, 148(4), 847–858.

Wooldridge, J.M. (2002), Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Zhang, H., Li, L., Zhou, D., & Zhou, P. (2014), Political connections, government subsidies and firm financial performance: Evidence from renewable energy manufacturing in China, ʽRenewable Energyʼ, 63(2), 330–336.