1524 CỔ PHẦN HÓA VÀ HIỆU QUÁ HOẠT ĐỘNG CỦA DOANH NGHIỆP NHÀ NƯỚC TẠI TP HCM

ệ - LÊ TH VÂN ANH C PH N HÓA VÀ HI U QU HO NG C A DOANH NGHI C T I THÀNH PH H CHÍ MINH ệ TP H Ch Minh, N m ậ A A Tôi cam đoan r ng lu n v n nƠy ắC ph n hóa hi u qu ho t đ ng c a doanh nghi p nhà n c t i Thành ph H Chí Minh” lƠ bƠi nghiên c u c a tơi Ngồi tr nh ng tài li u tham kh o đ c trích d n lu n v n nƠy, tơi cam đoan r ng tồn ph n hay nh ng ph n nh c a lu n v n nƠy ch a t ng đ b ho c đ c s d ng đ nh n b ng c p nh ng n i khác Khơng có s n ph m hay nghiên c u c a ng v n nƠy mƠ không đ c công i khác đ c s d ng lu n c trích d n theo quy đ nh Lu n v n nƠy ch a bao gi đ c n p đ nh n b t k b ng c p t i tr đ i h c ho c c s đƠo t o khác TP H Ch Minh, N m ầầầầầầầầầầ i ng Trong trình th c hi n lu n v n, đ hoàn thi n em đƣ nh n đ cr t nhi u s giúp đ t quý Th y Cô, gia đình vƠ b n bè Thơng qua lu n v n nƠy, em xin đ c g i l i c m n sơu s c t i t t c Q Th y Cơ, gia đình vƠ b n bè đƣ giúp đ em trình th c hi n lu n v n Em xin chân thành g i l i c m n t i Cơ Võ Th QuỦ đƣ nhi t tình h tr em vi c thu th p s li u, đ nh h ng vƠ h ng d n cho em, Cô c ng lƠ ngu n đ ng viên tinh th n r t l n giúp em nhanh chóng hồn thi n lu n v n Em xin c m n Th y ng V n Thanh, Th y đƣ h tr em r t nhi u trình thu th p s li u vƠ đ ng viên tinh th n trình em th c hi n lu n v n Em xin c m n Th y Lê Thái Th h ng Quơn đƣ cung c p cho em tài li u ng d n x lý d li u b ng, giúp em hồn thành đ c vi c phân tích s li u cho lu n v n Xin đ c g i l i c m n t i B , M , anh Ph m V n HoƠng Tu n đƣ h tr , t o u ki n v th i gian, đ ng viên em su t trình th c hi n lu n v n Em c ng xin g i l i c m n t i Ch Lê Th Minh Nguyên, Th y Ph m T n Nh t đƣ h ng d n cho em vi c x lý d li u nghiên c u Em xin kính chúc Q Th y Cơ, gia đình vƠ b n bè s c kh e thành công! ii ị Lu n v n ti n hành nghiên c u v hi u qu ho t đ ng c a 63 doanh nghi p nhƠ n c t i Thành ph H Ch Minh đ c c ph n hóa ch y u vƠo n m 2004 b ng ph ng pháp ki m đ nh phi tham s Wilconxon k t h p v i ph ng pháp h i quy đa bi n K t qu cho th y r ng hi u qu c a doanh nghi p sau c ph n hóa đƣ đ cho ng c c i thi n v hi u qu tài chính, hi u su t ho t đ ng, s n l ng, thu nh p i lao đ ng Lu n v n khơng tìm th y có s c t gi m lao đ ng doanh nghi p sau c ph n hóa Ngồi ra, k t qu h i quy cho th y q trình c ph n hóa đƣ mang l i hi u qu cao h n cho doanh nghi p nhƠ n hi u qu thay đ i nh th b doanh nghi p, t l s h u nhƠ n cao hay th p cu i ng n nh h c nh ng ng b i qui mô, l nh v c ho t đ ng c a c l i doanh nghi p sau c ph n hóa i đ ng đ u doanh nghi p lƠ ng c hay t nhơn iii i c a nhà Trang L I CAM OAN i L I C M N ii TÓM T T iii M C L C iv DANH M C B NG vii DANH M C T CH VI T T T viii NG : GI I THI U T NG QUAN NGHIÊN C U t v n đ nghiên c u 1.2 Lý nghiên c u 1.3 Câu h i nghiên c u 10 1.4 M c tiêu nghiên c u 11 1.5 Ph m vi nghiên c u 11 Các b c nghiên c u 12 1.7 óng góp c a nghiên c u 13 1.8 K t c u lu n v n nghiên c u 13 CH NG : T NG QUAN QUÁ TRÌNH C PH N HÓA DOANH NGHI P NHÀ N C T I VI T NAM 15 2.1 Quá trình c ph n hóa DNNN vi t nam 15 2.2 M c tiêu c ph n hóa 16 c m c ph n hóa t i thành ph h chí minh 18 CH NG : C S LÝ THUY T NGHIÊN C U 21 3.1 Lý thuy t c ph n hóa DNNN 21 3.2 Lý thuy t hi u qu ho t đ ng 23 3.3 C ph n hóa hi u qu ho t đ ng ki m đ nh phi tham s wilconxon 24 Tác đ ng c a c ph n hóa t i hi u qu ho t đ ng 24 iv 3.3.2 C ph n hóa hi u qu tài 26 3.3.3 C ph n hóa m i quan h v i hi u su t ho t đ ng s n l ng 27 3.3.4 C ph n hóa thu nh p trung bình 28 3.3.5 C ph n hóa vi c làm 29 3.3.6 C ph n hóa y u t nh h ng đ n hi u qu c a c ph n hóa 31 3.4 Các y u t quy t đ nh s khác bi t hi u qu c a c ph n hóa 31 CH NG 4: XÂY D NG GI THUY T VÀ PH NG PHÁP NGHIÊN C U33 4.1 Xây d ng gi thuy t nghiên c u 33 4.1.1 Gi thuy t nghiên c u v m i quan h gi a c ph n hóa hi u qu ho t đ ng c a doanh nghi p c ph n hóa 33 4.1.2 Gi thuy t nghiên c u v m i quan h tác đ ng gi a y u t khác hi u qu doanh nghi p đƣ c ph n hóa 35 Ph ng pháp nghiên c u 36 4.2.1 D li u nghiên c u 36 o l ng v m i quan h gi a c ph n hóa hi u qu ho t đ ng c a doanh nghi p c ph n hóa 37 4.2.4 Mơ hình nghiên c u m i quan h gi a y u t tác đ ng hi u qu doanh nghi p sau c ph n hóa 40 4.3 Th ng kê mô t l a ch n ph ng pháp cl ng h i quy 47 4.3.1 Th ng kê mô t 47 4.3.2 L a ch n ph CH ng pháp cl ng h i quy 48 NG 5: K T QU NGHIÊN C U VÀ TH O LU N 49 5.1 Ki m đ nh gi thuy t th o lu n nh ng nh h ng c a c ph n hóa đ i v i hi u qu ho t đ ng doanh nghi p 49 5.1.1 K t qu cho m u đ y đ 49 5.1.2 K t qu cho m u ph - Lo i hình doanh nghi p 53 5.1.3 K t qu cho m u ph - L nh v c ho t đ ng 56 5.1.4 K t qu cho m u ph - T l s h u nhà n 5.1.5 K t qu cho m u ph - G c c a ng c 58 i đ ng đ u doanh nghi p 60 v 5.1.6 Th o lu n v k t qu nghiên c u 5.2 Các y u t nh h Vi t Nam th gi i 62 ng đ n hi u qu c a c ph n hóa 66 5.2.1 Ki m đ nh gi thuy t nghiên c u 67 5.2.2 Th o lu n k t qu nghiên c u 69 CH NG 6: K T LU N VÀ KI N NGH 71 6.1 Nh ng n i dung nghiên c u 71 6.2 K t lu n nghiên c u 71 6.3 Khuy n ngh sách 72 6.4 Nh ng khó kh n, h n ch vƠ h ng nghiên c u ti p theo 73 6.4.1 Nh ng khó kh n vƠ h n ch 73 64 xu t h ng nghiên c u ti p theo 74 6.5 K t lu n 74 TÀI LI U THAM KH O 75 PH L C A 83 PH L C B 84 vi A B ng 4.1 Tóm t t gi thuy t nghiên c u 35 B ng 4.2 Tóm t t bi n nghiên c u 36 B ng 4.3: B ng tóm t t bi n nghiên c u 42 B ng 4.4 Th ng kê mô t 47 B ng 5.1: Tóm t t k t qu ki m đ nh phi tham s cho m u đ y đ 50 B ng 5.2: Tóm t t k t qu so sánh hi u qu c a nh ng doanh nghi p nh doanh nghi p v a 55 B ng 5.3: Tóm t t k t qu so sánh hi u qu c a nh ng doanh nghi p s n xu t vƠ th ng m i ậ d ch vu 57 B ng 5.4: Tóm t t k t qu so sánh hi u qu c a nh ng doanh nghi p có t l s h u nhƠ n c sau c ph n hóa khác 59 B ng 5.5: Tóm t t k t qu so sánh hi u qu c a nh ng doanh nghi p có g c c a CTH QT khác 61 B ng 5.6: Tóm t t k t qu nghiên c u v hi u qu c a c ph n hóa s d ng ph ng pháp MNR 65 B ng 5.7: Tóm t t k t qu h i qui 67 vii A CTH QT : Ch t ch h i đ ng qu n tr DNNN : Doanh nghi p nhƠ n c DT : Doanh thu DTL : Doanh thu lao đ ng L : Lao đ ng LNL : L i nhu n lao đ ng MNR : Megginson, Nash, Randenborgh ROA : Return on asset ROE : Return on equity ROS : Return on sales SHNN : S h u nhƠ n TNTB : Thu nh p trung bình c viii Ch 1: 1.1 ng : Gi i thi u t ng quan nghiên c u Q A Ê t v n đ nghiên c u C ph n hoá (t nhơn hóa) doanh nghi p nhƠ n hi u c i cách c c u doanh nghi p nhƠ n c m t bi n pháp h u c, đ ng th i góp ph n c c u l i n n kinh t m t cách hi u qu h n C ph n hóa giúp c i thi n hi u qu ho t đ ng c a doanh nghi p nhƠ n c, giúp kh c ph c, gi i quy t v n đ thâm h t ngân sách đ c bi t qu c gia phát tri n Theo Cook Kirkpatrick (1995), t l c ph n hóa di n vƠo n m 988 t i n c phát tri n chi m 94%, nh ng sau t l gi m xu ng 58% vƠo n m 99 Nh ng l i ích t c ph n hóa đƣ đ c nhìn nh n t r t s m Adam Smith đ c xem lƠ ng i có nhìn tiên phong v t nhơn hóa Vào n m 776, tác ph m ắBƠn v tài s n qu c gia” (tác ph m n n t ng cho Kinh t h c hi n đ i sau nƠy) Adam Smith đƣ vi t: N u đem bán nh ng vùng đ t thu c s h u c a nhà vua ch đ quân ch c a Châu Âu ch c ch n thu đ kho n ti n vơ l n s chi tr đ c m c s thu đ cm t c m i kho n n công N u đem chúng c m t s ti n l n h n r t nhi u so v i t t c nh ng vùng đ t khác quan tr ng h n lƠ n u bi n chúng thành s h u t nhơn chúng l p t c đ c c i t o canh tác hi u qu T gi a th k 19, c ph n hóa đ đ u ti n hành m nh m ch c Chính ph n c quan tâm b t ng trình c ph n hóa v i m c đ ch c i thi n n n n c i thi n hi u qu c a doanh nghi p nhƠ n c lún sơu vƠo thua l nguy c v n Megginson ctg (1994) nghiên c u v hi u qu ho t đ ng c a 61 doanh nghi p 18 qu c gia t 1961 ậ 1989 cho th y, hi u qu ho t đ ng đƣ đ c c i thi n r t nhi u sau c ph n hóa Bên c nh đó, D‟Souza ctg (2000) nghiên c u hi u qu ho t đ ng c a 118 doanh nghi p đƣ đ c t nhơn hóa 29 qu c gia t n m 96 ậ 1995 c ng cho th y, doanh nghi p sau c ph n hóa, có s tham gia s h u c a t nhơn đƣ lƠm cho hi u qu ho t đ ng t ng đáng k Thêm vƠo đó, Jones Ch ng 6: K t lu n khuy n ngh nh ng m c tiêu v n không thay đ i K t qu nghiên c u cho th y doanh nghi p c ph n hóa đƣ th c hi n đ c sát v i m c tiêu Chính ph đ a T hai v n đ lu n v n đ a nh ng khuy n ngh sách cho nhà ho ch đ nh ch nh sách nh sau: Nên th c hi n c ph n hóa đ i v i nh ng doanh nghi p ho t đ ng nhi u l nh v c khác đ đ t đ c nhi u m c tiêu hi u qu lúc B ng ch ng t nghiên c u cho th y, doanh nghi p s n xu t cho hi u su t ho t đ ng thu nh p trung bình cao, nh ng l i đ t đ c hi u qu tài th p h n doanh nghi p l i Nên đ cho ng i c a t nhơn u hành doanh nghi p đ đ t đ chính, hi u su t ho t đ ng, s n l ng thu nh p cho ng c hi u qu tài i lao đ ng cao h n giúp t ng ngu n thu ngơn sách vƠ t ng hi u qu kinh t - xã h i Nên gi m t l s c a h u nhƠ n đ tđ tr c doanh nghi p xu ng d c hi u qu ho t đ ng doanh nghi p cao h n i5 %đ i u m t khác giúp t o đ c th ng c nh tranh h n, công b ng h n cho doanh nghi p cịn l i, t giúp doanh nghi p c ph n hóa ph i ho t đ ng s n xu t kinh doanh ch đ ng, c i ti n sáng t o h n Nên đa d ng hóa c ph n hóa doanh nghi p có qui mơ ho t đ ng khác nhau, u tiên cho nh ng doanh nghi p có quy mơ nh Thơng qua c ph n hóa Chính ph có th gi i quy t đ c v n đ thâm h t ngơn sách đ ng th i tái c c u n n kinh t Nên có nh ng quy đ nh vi c công khai thông tin báo cáo ho t đ ng, báo cáo tƠi ch nh đ t o u ki n cho nh ng nghiên c u sơu h n, đ y đ h n v c ph n hóa t i Vi t Nam v n cịn r t nghèo nƠn Qua có th cung c p nhi u góc nhìn h n v c ph n hóa Vi t Nam c ng nh góp ph n hồn thi n h n sách v c ph n hóa 6.4 h ng khó kh n, h n ch vƠ h ng nghiên c u ti p theo 6.4.1 h ng khó kh n vƠ h n ch Rào c n l n nh t mà lu n v n g p ph i th c hi n v n đ thu th p d li u Ph i m t tháng đ thu th p nh ng cách nƠo đ thu th p đ c đ y đ ch tiêu yêu c u Vì v y, lu n v n ph i t b nghiên c u v hi u qu s d ng v n, s d ng 73 Ch ng 6: K t lu n khuy n ngh đòn b y c a doanh nghi p c ph n hóa Bên c nh ch hồn thành lu n v n m t tháng k t thu th p đ c d li u cho k p ti n đ nên nhi u h n ch v trình bày n i dung lu n v n M t khác, c ng b h n ch vi c thu th p d li u nên lu n v n ch a đánh giá đ c đa d ng h n n a y u t nh h ng t i hi u qu c a c ph n hóa Lu n v n ch th c hi n nghiên c u đ i v i doanh nghi p c ph n hóa t i Thành ph H Chí Minh Vì cịn h n ch b i kh n ng phơn t ch v n đ th c t , c ng nh ch a có kinh nghi m nghiên c u nhi u tr c nên nh ng nh n đ nh, k t lu n, gi i thích cho k t qu nghiên c u ch a sơu s c 6.4.1 xu t h ng nghiên c u ti p theo Nên có nghiên c u th c hi n v i s li u c a nhi u doanh nghi p nhi u t nh thành, t có th đánh giá đ c đa d ng h n y u t nh h ng t i hi u qu c a c ph n hóa, đ có m t nhìn tồn di n h n v c ph n hóa c a Vi t Nam Nên có nghiên c u v tác đ ng c a c ph n hóa lên y u t kinh t v mô nh GDP, vi c làm, thu nh p trung bình, đ u t góp ph n đánh giá đ c r ng h n v hi u qu c a c ph n hóa t i Vi t Nam 6.5 K t lu n Lu n v n đƣ góp ph n ph n ánh khách quan m i quan h gi a c ph n hóa hi u qu ho t đ ng c a doanh nghi p nhƠ n cđ c c ph n hóa Vì v y, góp ph n làm phong phú thêm nh ng nghiên c u v c ph n hóa cịn r t h n ch t i Vi t Nam, lu n v n c ng th t s h u ích cho nh ng quan tâm t i v n đ c ph n hóa t i Vi t Nam nh ng nhà ho ch đ nh sách Nh ng đ xu t cho h ng nghiên c u ti p theo giúp khuy n khích nhà nghiên c u quan tâm nghiên c u t i hi u qu c a q trình c ph n hóa t i Vi t Nam 74 Tài li u tham kh o A K Barberis, Nicholas, Maxim Boycko, Andrei Shleifer, and Natalia Tsukanova (1996) ắHow Does Privatization Work? Evidence From the Russian Shops” Journal of Political Economy Barnett, Steven (2000) ắEvidence on the Fiscal and Macroeconomic Impact of Privatization” IMF Working Paper WP/00/130 Washington D.C.: International Monetary Fund Bennell, Paul (1997) ắPrivatization in sub-Saharan Africa: Progress and prospects during the 1990s” World Development25, 1785-1803 Black, Bernard, Reinier Kraakman and Anna Tarassova, (2000), ắRussian Privatization and Corporate Governance: What Went Wrong?”, Stanford Law Review, forthcoming Boardman, Anthony E., and Aidan R Vining (1989) ắOwnership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises” Journal of Law and Economics Boardman, A., Laurin, C., Vining, A (2000) ắPrivatization in Canada: Operating, Financial, and Stock Price Performance with International Comparisons” Working Paper, University British Columbia, Vancouver Bortolotti, Bernardo, Marcella Fantini, Domenico Siniscalco, and Serena Vitalini (1998) ắPrivatisation processes in a cross-section of countries: An empirical analysis” Working Paper, Università di Torino, Italy Boubakri, Narjess and Jean-Claude Cosset (2000) ắThe Aftermarket Performance of Privatization Offerings in Developing Countries ” Working Paper Ecole des HEC: Montreal Boubakri, Narjess, and Jean-Claude Cosset (1999) ắDoes Privatization Meet the Expectations? Evidence From African Countries” Working Paper Montreal: Ecole des HEC 75 Tài li u tham kh o Boubakri, Narjess, and Jean-Claude Cosset (1998) “The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly-Privatized Firms: Evidence From Developing Countries” Journal of Finance 53: 1081-1110 Boycko, M., Shleifer, A and Vishny, R W ( 996) „A theory of privatisation‟ Economic Journal, 106, pp 309ậ19 Brada, Josef C (1996) ắPrivatization is Transition Or is it?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 10, pp 67-86 Claessens, Stijn, Simeon Djankov, and Pohl (1997) ắOwnership and Corporate Governance: Evidence from the Czech Republic” World Bank, Washington, DC, Policy Research Paper No 1737 Cook, P and C Kirkpatric k, (1995) ắThe Distributional Impact of Privatization in Developing Countries: who gets what and why” Ch.2 in Ramanadham, V.V (ed.), Privatization and Equity, Routledge: London and NY Cragg, Michael I., and I.J Alexander Dyck (1998) ắPrivatization,compensation and management incentives: Evidence from the United Kingdom” Working Paper, Harvard University Cragg, Michael I and I.J Alexander Dyck (1999) ắManagement control and privatization in the United Kingdom forthcoming” Rand Journal of Economics Dewenter, Kathryn and Paul H Malatesta (2000) ắState-Owned and Privately-Owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labour Intensity” American Economic Review, forthcoming Djankov, Simeon (1999a) ắOwnership Structure and Enterprise Restructuring in Six Newly Independent States” Comparative Economic Studies 41(1): 75- 95 Djankov, Simeon (1999b) ắThe Restructuring of Insider- Dominated Firms: A Comparative Analysis” Economic Transition 7(2): 467- 479 D‟Souza, Juliet and William L Megginson (1999) ắThe Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms in the 1990s” Journal of Finance 54, pp 1397-1438 76 Tài li u tham kh o D‟Souza, Juliet and William L Improvement in Privatized Megginson Firms: A (2000) ắSources of Performance Clinical Study of the Global Telecommunications Industry” Working paper, University of Oklahoma: Norman D‟Souza, Juliet, Robert Nash, and William L Megginson (2000) ắDeterminants of Performance Improvement in Newly-Privatized Firms: Does Restructuring and Corporate Governance Matter?” Working paper, University of Oklahoma: Norman Dyck, I.J Alexander (1997) ắPrivatization in eastern Germany: Management selection and economic transition,American Economic” Working paper Review87, 565597 Earle, John S, (1998a) ắPost-Privatization Ownership Structure and Productivity in Russian Industrial Enterprises” SITE working paper, Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics Earle, J and Estrin S (1998) ắPrivatization, Competition and Budget Constraints: Disciplining Enterprises in Russia” SITE working paper 128, Stockholm School of Economics Eckel, Catherine, Doug Eckel, and Vijay Singhal (1997) ắPrivatization and efficiency: Industry effects of the sale of British Airways” Journal of Financial Economics 43, 275-298 Ehrlich, I., Gallais-Hamonno, G., Liu, Z., Lutter, R., (1994) ắProductivity growth and firm ownership: an analytical and empirical investigation” Journal of Political Economy 102 (5), 1006ậ1038 Eytan Sheshinski and Luis F López-Calva (2003) ắPrivatization and Its Benefits: Theory and Evidence” CESifo Economic Studies, Vol 49, 3/2003, 429ậ459 Fforde, Adam (2004) ắVietnamese State-Owned Enterprises: ắReal Property”, Commercial Performance and Political Economy ” City University of Hong Kong, Working Paper Series 69, August 77 Tài li u tham kh o Fredrik Sjöholm (2006) ắState Owned Enterprises And Equitization In Viet Nam” Working Paper 228 Frydman, Roman & Gray, Cheryl W & Hessel, Marek & Rapaczynski, Andrzej (1997) "Private ownership and corporate performance: some lessons from transition economies" Policy Research Working Paper Series1830, The World Bank Frydman, Roman, Cheryl W Gray, Marek Hessel, and Andrzej Rapaczynski (1998) ắWhen does privatization work? The impact of private ownership on corporate performance in transition economies” Working Paper, C.V Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University Frydman, Roman, Cheryl W Gray, Marek Hessel, and Andrzej Rapaczynski (1999) ắWhen Does Privatization Work? The Impact of Private Ownership on Corporate Performance in Transition Economies,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114:4, pp 1153-1191 Galal, Ahmed, Leroy Jones, Pankaj Tandon and Ingo Vogelsang (1992) “Welfare Consequences of Selling Public Enterprises” Washington, DC.: World Bank Gainsborough, Martin (2005) ắPrivatisation as State Advance: Private Indirect Government in Vietnam” Working Paper No 12-08 Gibbon, Henry (1997) ắA Seller‟s Manual: Guidelines for Selling State-Owned Enterprises” Privatisation Yearbook , London: Privatisation International, pp 1626 Harper, J T (2002) ắThe performance of privatized firms in the Czech Republic” Journal of Banking & Finance, 26, pp 621ậ 49 Hibou, B ( 4), ắPrivatising the State” ( st edn) Hardcover Junki Kim and Hongkyou Chung (2007) ắEmpirical Study on the Performance of Stateowned-enterprises and the Privatizing Pressure: The Case of Korea” Working Paper Katariina Hakkala and Ari Kokko (2007) ắThe State And The Private Sector In Viet Nam” Working Paper 236 78 Tài li u tham kh o Kikeri, Sunita (1998) ắPrivatization and Labor: What Happens to Workers When Governments Divest?” World Bank Technical Paper 396 Washington, D.C.: World Bank Kay, J.A and D.J Thompson (1986) ắPrivatisation: A Policy in Search of a Rationale” Economic Journal 96, pp 18-32 Kole, Stacey R and J Harold Mulherin (1997) ắ The Government as a Shareholder: A Case From the UnitedStates” Journal of Law and Economics 40, pp 1-22 La Porta, Rafael, and Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes (1997) ắThe Benefits of Privatization: Evidence from Mexico” NBER Working Paper 6215 Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Long Pham (2011) ắImpact of Applying Human Resource Manegement practices on Equitized Stateowned Enterprises‟ Financial Performane in Viet Nam” Journal of International Business Research López-De-Silanes, F., A Shleifer, and R Vishny (1997) ắPrivatization in the United States” Rand Journal of Economics, XXVIII, autumn Martin Gainsborough (2005) ắPrivatisation as State Advance: Private Indirect Government in Vietnam” Politics and International Studies Martin, Stephen, and David Parker (1995) ắPrivatization and economic performance throughout the UK business cycle”, Managerial and Decision Economics16, 225237 Macquieira, C; and Zurita, S (1996) ắPrivatizaciones en Chile; eficiencia y políticas financieras” Estudios de Administracion 3(2), 1-36 Majumdar, Sumit K (1996) ắAssessing Comparative Efficiency of the State-Owned, Mixed, and Private Sectors in Indian Industry” Public Choice 96, pp 1-24 Megginson, William and Jeffry Netter (2001) ắFrom State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies On Privatization” Forthcoming, Journal of Economic Literature 79 Tài li u tham kh o Megginson, William, Robert Nash, and Matthias van Randenborgh (1994) ắThe Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis” Journal of Finance 49: 403-452 Molz, R., and T Hafsi (1997) ắEvaluation and assessment of privatization outcomes: A conceptual model and empirical evidence” Environmental Planning and Control 15, 481-495 Nellis, John (1999) ắTime to Rethink Privatization in Transition Economies?” IFC Discussion paper no 38, Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group Nellis, John (2002) ắPrivatization and Enterprise Reform in Transition Economies: A Retrospective Analysis ” Forthcoming OED Working Paper Washington D.C.: World Bank Nellis, J, (1997) ắIs Privatization Necessary?”, Public Policy for the Private Sector, The World Bank Newbery, David and Michael G Pollitt, (1997) ắThe restructuring and privatization of Britain‟s CEGB Was it worth it?”, Journal of Industrial Economics 45, 269-303 Patokina A O and Baranov,.I N, (1999) ắPrivatization in Russia: the Search for an Efficient Model Russian & East European Finance and Trade” Journal of Translations, vol 35 Pohl, Gerhard, Robert E Anderson, Stijn Claessens, and Simeon Djankov (1997) ắPrivatization and Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence and Policy Options” World Bank Technical Paper 368 Washington D.C.: World Bank Pinto, Brian, Merek Belka, and Stefan Krajewski (1993) ắTransforming State Enterprises in Poland: Evidence on Adjustment by Manufacturing Firms” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, pp 213-261 Richard L Bernal, Winsome J Leslie, ( 999) ắPrivatization in the English-Speaking Caribbean: An Assessment” Policy Papers on the Americas, Volume X, Study 80 Tài li u tham kh o Ramamurti, Ravi (1997) ắTesting the limits of privatization: Argentine railroads” World Development 25, 1973-1993 Smith, A (1776) ắAn Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” Edition II by Oxford University Press, 1976 Serven, L., A Solimano, and R Soto (1994) ắThe Macroeconomics of Public Enterprise Reform and Privatization: Theory and Evidence from Developing Countries” Macroeconomics and Growth Division, Policy Research Department, The World Bank Thi Quy Vo (2012) ắPrivatization and Corporate Performance in Transition Economies: The case of Vietnam” Working Paper Series No 2012/ 22 Tian, George Lihui (2000) ắState Shareholding and Corporate Performance: A Study of a Unique Chinese Data Set” working paper, London Business School Tran Tien Cuong and Bui Van Dung, Pham Duc Trung, Nguyen Kim Anh, Nguyen Thi Lam Ha, Nguyen Thi Luyen, and Trinh Duc Chieu (2006) ắVietnamese StateOwned Enterprises after Equitization: Performance, Emerging Issues, and Policy Recommendations” Economic Research Truong Dong Loc (2006) ắThe impact of privatization on firm performance in a transition economy” Economics of Transition Volume 14 (2) 2006, 349ậ389 Vining, Aidan R and Anthony E Boardman (1992) ắOwnership Versus Competition: Efficiency in Public Enterprise” Public Choice 73, pp 205-239 UNDP (2006) ắState as an investor: Privatised, Privatization and Converting SOEs in Vietnam” UNDP, Hanoi Verbrugge, James , Wanda Owens, and William Megginson (2000) "State Ownership and the Financial Performance of Privatized Banks: An Empirical Analysis" Conference Proceedings of a Policy Research Workshop Held at the World Bank, March 15-16,1999 Dallas: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Vu Thanh Tu Anh (2005) ắA Long March to Equitization” William Davidson Institute Policy Brief No 33, Michigan University, April 2005 81 Tài li u tham kh o Wasserfallen, Walter, and Stefan Müller (1998) ắDeregulation and privatization: Evidence from the telecommunications industry in Europe and implications for Switzerland” Working Paper Studienzentrum Gerzensee, Switzerland Wei, Z ,and O.Varela (2003) "State Equity Ownership and Firm Market Performance:Evidence fromChina's Newly Privatized Firms" Global Finance Journal Yarrow, G (1986) ắPrivatisation in theory and practice” Economic Policy, (2st edn), pp 324 ậ64 82 Ph l c A Ma tr n t roa roa roe ros dtld lnld dt tntb ld linhvuc ceo shtnbg quimo roe ros dtld lnld ng quan dt ceo shtnbg quimo 1.0000 0.5671 1.0000 0.8754 0.5803 1.0000 0.0780 0.0127 -0.0127 1.0000 0.8918 0.5299 0.9305 0.1416 1.0000 0.2781 0.0771 0.0880 0.9095 0.2960 1.0000 -0.0217 -0.0037 -0.0406 0.2498 -0.0031 0.2611 1.0000 0.1332 0.0573 0.1338 -0.2849 0.0767 -0.1284 0.0259 1.0000 0.0294 -0.0595 0.0244 0.1194 0.0343 0.1373 0.0729 -0.0419 1.0000 -0.0696 0.0344 -0.0622 -0.0982 -0.0758 -0.1293 -0.0320 -0.0184 0.0228 1.0000 0.1092 0.0186 0.0907 0.0517 0.0895 0.0851 -0.0490 0.1699 -0.0484 -0.5579 0.0623 0.1002 -0.0033 0.0339 -0.0383 0.0482 0.0154 0.0172 -0.1646 0.0518 1.0000 0.0784 1.0000 Giá tr VIF vif Variable VIF 1/VIF shtnbg ceo quimo linhvuc 1.48 1.47 1.05 1.03 0.676890 0.679449 0.954850 0.971440 Mean VIF 1.26 83 tntb ld linhvuc Ph l c Ki m đ nh ph ng sai thay đ i hettest Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of roa chi2(1) Prob > chi2 = = 5.73 0.0167 imtest, white White's test for Ho: homoskedasticity against Ha: unrestricted heteroskedasticity chi2(10) Prob > chi2 = = 10.95 0.3611 hettest Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of roe chi2(1) Prob > chi2 = = 16.58 0.0000 imtest, white White's test for Ho: homoskedasticity against Ha: unrestricted heteroskedasticity chi2(10) Prob > chi2 = = 3.99 0.9480 hettest Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of ros chi2(1) Prob > chi2 = = 59.00 0.0000 imtest, white White's test for Ho: homoskedasticity against Ha: unrestricted heteroskedasticity chi2(10) Prob > chi2 = = 8.89 0.5426 84 Ph l c hettest Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of dtld chi2(1) Prob > chi2 = = 160.13 0.0000 imtest, white White's test for Ho: homoskedasticity against Ha: unrestricted heteroskedasticity chi2(10) Prob > chi2 = = 4.49 0.9227 hettest Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of lnld chi2(1) Prob > chi2 = = 118.11 0.0000 imtest, white White's test for Ho: homoskedasticity against Ha: unrestricted heteroskedasticity chi2(10) Prob > chi2 = = 7.97 0.6315 hettest Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of dt chi2(1) Prob > chi2 = = 92.98 0.0000 imtest, white White's test for Ho: homoskedasticity against Ha: unrestricted heteroskedasticity chi2(10) Prob > chi2 = = 5.83 0.8293 85 Ph l c hettest Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of tntb chi2(1) Prob > chi2 = = 0.07 0.7865 imtest, white White's test for Ho: homoskedasticity against Ha: unrestricted heteroskedasticity chi2(10) Prob > chi2 = = 4.38 0.9287 hettest Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: fitted values of ld chi2(1) Prob > chi2 = = 21.42 0.0000 imtest, white White's test for Ho: homoskedasticity against Ha: unrestricted heteroskedasticity chi2(10) Prob > chi2 = = 17.18 0.0705 86 Ph l c PH L C C xtserial roa linhvuc ceo shtnbg quimo Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data H0: no first order autocorrelation F( 1, 62) = 0.072 Prob > F = 0.7896 xtserial roe linhvuc ceo shtnbg quimo Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data H0: no first order autocorrelation F( 1, 62) = 0.089 Prob > F = 0.7666 xtserial ros linhvuc ceo shtnbg quimo Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data H0: no first order autocorrelation F( 1, 62) = 0.713 Prob > F = 0.4018 xtserial dtldlinhvuc ceo shtnbg quimo variable dtldlinhvuc not found r(111); xtserial dtld linhvuc ceo shtnbg quimo Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data H0: no first order autocorrelation F( 1, 62) = 5.629 Prob > F = 0.0208 xtserial lnld linhvuc ceo shtnbg quimo Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data H0: no first order autocorrelation F( 1, 62) = 0.971 Prob > F = 0.3283 xtserial dt linhvuc ceo shtnbg quimo Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data H0: no first order autocorrelation F( 1, 62) = 52.535 Prob > F = 0.0000 xtserial tntb linhvuc ceo shtnbg quimo Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data H0: no first order autocorrelation F( 1, 62) = 25.983 Prob > F = 0.0000 xtserial ld linhvuc ceo shtnbg quimo Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data H0: no first order autocorrelation F( 1, 62) = 0.091 Prob > F = 0.7638 87