Đánhgiátácđộngđầutư Quỹ thách thức Việt Nam - Trường hợp nghiên cứu Chuỗigiá trị Bò H’Mong Cao Bằng Hoàng Thị Mỹ Hằng Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội Chuyên ngành: Quản trị kinh doanh; Mã số: 60 34 05 Người hướng dẫn: TS Nguyễn Thị Phi Nga Năm bảo vệ: 2012 Abstract: Kết nghiên cứu hỗ trợ Quỹ Thách thức Việt Nam tạo thay đổi tích cực mặt kinh tế xã hội việc tạo thu nhập, việc làm lợi ích cho công ty Keywords: Quản trị kinh doanh; Đầu tư; Kinh tế học; Cao Bằng Content TABLLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ABSTRACT ii TÓM TẮT vi TABLLE OF CONTENTS x LIST OF TABLE xiii LIST OF FIGURES xiv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv INTRODUCTION 1 Background and relevance of the study Focus and scope of the study Sources information and research method Structure of the study CHAPTER 1: THE ORIES AND LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 The challenge fund 1.1.1 Original of challenge fund and its characteristics 1.1.2 Challenge funds‟portfolio approach 1.1.3Enhancing Value Chain‟s approach 1.1.4 The challenge fund impacts 10 1.2 Impact investment evaluation of Challenge Fund 14 1.2.1 Impact investingconcept 14 1.2.2 Impact investment methods: 15 x 1.2.3 Impact investment method of Challenge Fund 18 1.2.4 Experimental method 20 1.2.5 Key measurements 22 1.3 Understanding the Vietnam Challenge Fund 23 CHAPTER 2: THE PROJECT ON H’MONG BEEF CONSUMPTION CHANNEL IN CAO BANG PROVINCE 26 2.1 Cao Bang profile 26 2.2 Current beef consumption channel in Cao Bang province 28 2.3 H’mong beef consumption channel project of The Vietnam Challenge Fund in Cao Bang province 30 2.3.1 Le Thanh Company – the main project implementing partner 30 2.3.2 Cao Bang H‟Mong beef project operation 32 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGIES 33 3.1 Sample design and selection 33 3.2 The Questionnaire 34 3.3 Data Collection 34 3.4 Data Processing 35 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 36 4.1 General characteristics of the sample 36 4.2 Social investment returns: 38 4.2.1 Income generation at Household /Farmer level 38 4.2.1.1 The treatment group (The baseline data vs after-project data) 38 4.1.1.2 The control group and the treatment group (with and without project intervention) 45 xi 4.2.2 Job creation at worker/household level 52 4.3 Economic return of the company 54 4.3.1 Technical benefits 54 4.3.2 Commercial benefits 55 4.3.3 Financial benefits 57 4.4 Challenges 57 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENATION 59 REFERENCES 64 APPENDIX 68 xii REFERENCES Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (2011), “Great business ideas deserve serious investment: Africa enterprise challenge fund launches new competition windows”, African Business, Research Into Business Window (RIB), pp 380-316 Anderson, E., C et al (2004) "Customer satisfaction and shareholder value." Journal of Marketing, vol 68, no 4, pp 172-185 Baker L.J (2000), Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for Practitioners, (Washington, DC: World Bank), http://go.worldbank org/ 8E2ZTGBOI0 Barkat et al (2002), Economic and Social Impact Evaluation Study of the Rural Electrification Program in Bangladesh, Human Development Research Bester H (2011), “Challenge Funds: an overview”, http://www.btrust.org.za/fileadmin/pdf/01_SGCF_Learning_event_H_ Bester_presentation_03.03.pdf Boruch R.F, Wothke W.(1985),"Randomization and field experimentation”, New Directions in Program Evaluation Series, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Brennan et.al (1998), “ The distribution of SRB Challenge Fund Expenditure in relation to local area needs in England”, Discussion Paper 91, Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, Cambridge Bui Tuan (2008), “Report on implementation of coffee value chain for ethnic minorities”, Buon Ma Thuot, Rural Development of Dak Lak http://www.caobang.gov.vn/wps/portal 64 10 Caobang Statistical Year Book 2010, Statistical Public House 11 Caobang Statistical Year Book 2011, Statistical Public House 12 Carlsson J, Kohlin G, Ekbom A (1994), “The Political Economy of Evaluation: International Aid Agencies and the Effectiveness of Aid”, St Martin's Press, London 13 Carvalho, S and H White (2004) "Theory-Based Evaluation: The Case of Social Fund", American Journal of Evaluation, Vol.25, No 2, pp 141-160 14 Cook T D, Campbell D T (1979), Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company 15 Department for International Development (2012), “ Summary DFID‟s work in the Caribean 2011 - 2015”, http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/op/caribbean-2011summary.pdf 16 Dao The Anh et al (2010), “Value chain development for mountainous areas: relation between animal breed and territory: The case of H‟mong beef in Cao Bang, Vietnam”, The 116th EAAE Seminar: 'spatial dynamics in agri-food systems: imlications for sustainability and consumer welfare, Italy 17 Enterprise Challenge Fund for Pacific and South Asia, http://www.enterprisechallengefund.org/default.aspx?menu=3&sub=0 &menuid=17&MenuTypeId=4 18 Market for poor, “Fast facts: Vietnam Challenge Fund‟s H‟mong beef project in Cao Bang”, http://www.markets4poor.org/m4p2/filedownload/Hmong%20beef_fast %20facts_v1%20TN%2008052012%20FINAL.pdf 65 19 Gottschick, M (2008), "Participatory sustainability impact sssessment: scientific policy advice as a social learning process", System Practice Action Res, Vol 21, pp 479 - 495 20 Jones, N., H et al (2009), “Improving impact evaluation production and use”, Preliminary form for Discussion and Critical Comment, London 21 Lopez G.A, Tinajero M (2010), Mexico: impact evaluation of small and medium size enterprise programs using panel firm data,Policy Research Working Paper Series 5186, The World Bank 22 Moustier, P and D T Anh (2009), “Guidelines for smallholder access to high quality value chains in Vietnam”, A handbook based on the superchain experience, International Fund for Agriculture Development 23 Newnham J (2011), “Small Medium size Enterprise and Department for International Development Business Challenge Funds”, Emerging Markets Group,http://www.entreprendre- mediterranee.com/documents/colloque-acim-tunis-2007/docs/12Challenge-Funds-Eng-Newnham.pdf 24 Irwin, D and Porteous, D (2005), “Financial Deepening Challenge Fund Strategic Project Review”, Report funded by DFID and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 25 Programme for Cooperation with emerging markets, from http://www.met.gov.ps/pdf/Psom.pdf 26 Reidar D (1998), “Perspectives and Variables of Evaluation” in Evaluation Framework for Development Programmes and Projects, Sage Publications, London, pp.39-84 (Chapter 2) 66 27 Roche, C (1999), “Impact Assessment for development agencies:learning to value change”, Oxford 28 Rossi H.P, Freeman E.H (1993), “Evaluation: A systematic approach”, Sage Publication, California 29 Samarasinghe B (2012), Vietnam Challenge Fund Projects: some key success factors, http://www.markets4poor.org/ 30 Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (2012), “Business for development”, Program for Sida’s cooperation with the business sector 2010 – 2012, http://www.sida.se/English/Tools/Search/?q=Business+for+Developme nt 31 United Nation Development Programme (2009), “Agro-value chain analysis and development”, United Nations Industrial Development Organisation 32 Valadez J & Bamberger M (1994), Monitoring and evaluating social programs in developing countries: A handbook for policymakers, managers and researchers Washington, DC: The World Bank, Economic Development Institute 33 World Bank (2002), “Mornitoring and evaluation: some tools, methods and aproaches”, Washington 34 World Health Organisation (2001) "Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI)" from https://apps.who.int/inf- fs/en/fact169.html 35 Xinhua News Agency (2007), “Africa enterprise challenge fund launched in Cape Town”, Xinhua News Agency – CEIS, Woodside, United States, Woodside 67