Gia nh p Hi p đ nh kinh t chi n l cxuyên Thái Bình D ng (TPP) là v n đ m i m , l n đ u tiên đ c đ c p t i Vi t Nam nên hi n có nhi u cái nhìn v i nh ng quan đi m khác nhau. Tuy nhiên, Vi t Nam đư b c vào sân ch i chung toàn c u, không có con đ ng nào khác là ti p t c h i nh p sâu r ng đ t ng t c phát tri n. S c ép h i nh p bu c Vi t Nam ph i thay đ i và v n lên.
Bài nghiên c u c ng đư kh c h a m c đ tác đ ng c a các nhân t chính tác
đ ng đ n dòng th ng m i gi a Vi t Nam và các n c thành viên TPP. T đó, ki n ngh v i các c quan h u n ngc ng nh đ ngh m t s gi i pháp cho doanh nghi p Vi t Nam n m b t c h i và h n ch nh ng khó kh n nh m nâng cao giá tr s n ph m và thúc đ y c nh tranh s n ph m xu t, nh p kh u khi Vi t Nam gia nh p TPP. Có th th y, vi c xu t hi n TPP là m t t t y u khi có r t nhi u v n đ mà các FTA hi n t i ch a gi i quy t đ c. V i riêng doanh nghi p Vi t Nam, c h i có nhi u nh ng thách th c c ng không nh và n u không n l c h t mình thì r t có th doanh nghi p Vi t Nam s thua ngay khi TPP b t đ u có hi u l c. i u này đòi h i s đ u t công s c c a các nhà ho ch đ nh chính sách, các nhà nghiên c u và b n thân m i doanh nghi p đ tìm đ c h ng đi phù h p nh t cho doanh nghi p c a mình. Hy v ng r ng, khi TPP đ c ký k t và có hi u l c, nh ng l i ích mà doanh nghi p Vi t Nam thu đ c s l n h n nh ng tr ng i mà các doanh nghi p này g p ph i.
DANH M C TÀI LI U THAM KH O Danh m c tài li u ti ng Vi t:
1. ào Ng c Ti n, 2013. nh h ng c a các nhân t t i lu ng xu t – nh p kh u hàng hóa gi a Vi t Nam và các n c TPP. Kinh t và D báo, s 4, trang 23-27.
2. inh Th Thanh Long và inh Th Minh Tâm, 2009. Phá giá n i t : hi u ng tuy n J hay tuy n S? T p chí ngân hàng, s 24.
3. inh Th Thanh Long và inh Th Minh Tâm, 2010. Phá giá n i t : hi u ng tuy n J hay tuy n S? T p chí ngân hàng, s 1.
4. Nguyên Ti n D ng, 2011. Tác đ ng c a Khu v c Th ng m i T do ASEAN –
Hàn Qu c đ n th ng m i Vi t Nam. T p chí khoa h c HQGHN, Kinh t và kinh doanh, s 27, trang 219-231 [pdf] website:
<http://dl.vnu.edu.vn/bitstream/11126/743/1/Bai%202%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.%
20Nguyen%20Tien%20Dung.pdf> [Ngày truy c p: 18 tháng 2 n m 2014].
5. Tr n H u D ng, 2008. Paul Krugman, Noben Kinh t 2008. T p chí Tia Sáng, s 11, trang 24-27 [online] website:
<http://tiasang.com.vn/Default.aspx?tabid=114&CategoryID=7&News=2486> [Ngày truy c p: 19 tháng 2 n m 2014].
6. Tr n Trung Hi u và Ph m Th Thu Th y, 2010. ng d ng mô hình l c h p d n
trong th ng m i qu c t : Các nhân t tác đ ng đ n xu t kh u c a Vi t Nam. Qu n lý kinh t , S 31, trang 12-25.
7. Trung tâm H tr h i nh p WTO thành ph H Chí Minh, 2013. C h i và thách th c c a doanh nghi p khi Vi t Nam tham gia Hi p đ nh TPP.
<http://36mfjx1a0yt01ki78v3bb46n15gp.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/TPP-Opportunities-and-challenges-for-Vietnamese-
8. T Thúy Anh và ào Nguyên Th ng, 2008. Các nhân t nh h ng t i m c đ
t p trung th ng m i c a Vi t Nam v i Asean+3, bài nghiên c u NC-05/2008. Trung tâm Nghiên c u Kinh t và Chính sách CEPR [pdf] website:
<http://dl.ueb.edu.vn/bitstream/1247/56/2/NC-05.pdf> [Ngày truy c p: 21 tháng
Danh m c tài li u ti ng Anh:
1. Adams, R., Dee, P., Gali, J., and Mc Guire, G., 2003. The Trade and Investment Effects of Preferential Trading Arrangements - Old and New Evidence. Canberra:
Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper.
2. Anderson, J. E., 1979. A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. The American Economic Review, Vol.69, No.1, page 106-116.
3. Bac Xuan Nguyen, 2010. The Determinants of Vietnamese Export Flows: Static and Dynamic Panel Gravity Approaches. International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol.2, No.4, page 122-129.
4. Baltagi, B. H., 2005. Econometric analysis of panel data. 3rd ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
5. Batra, A., 2006. India’s global trade potential: the gravity model approach.
Global Economic Review, Vol.35, No.3, page 327-361.
6. Bergstrand, J. H., 1985. The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomics foundations and empirical evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.67, No.3, page 474-481.
7. Bergstrand, J. H., 1989. The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition, and the factor-proportions theory in international trade. The American Economic Review, Vol.71, No.1, page 143-153. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
8. Blomqvist, H. C., 2004. Explaining trade flows of Singapore. Asian Economic Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, page 25-43.
9. Boisso, D., and Ferrantino, M., 1997. Economic distance, cultural distance, and openness in international trade: Empirical puzzles. Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, Vol.12, page 456- 484.
10. Carrere, C., 2006. Revisiting the effects of regional trade agreements on trade flows with proper specification of the gravity model. European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50, No.2, page 223-247.
11. Chan-Hyun Sohn, 2005. Does the gravity model explain South Korea’s trade
flows? Japanese Economic Review, Issue 4, Vol.56, page 417-430.
12. Chan-Hyun Sohn and Lee Hongshik, 2006. How FTAs affect income levels of member countries. World Economy, Vol.29, paper 1737-1757.
13. Chaney, T., 2013. The gravity equation in international trade: an explanation. NBER Working Paper, No.19285. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
14. Clark, X., and Tavares, J., 2000. A quantitative approach using the gravity equation. Development Discussion Paper, Harvard Institute for International Development, No.748. Harvard University, February 2000.
15. Dao Ngoc Tien, 2009. Determinants to Vietnam’s export flows and government
implications under the global crisis. PhD dissertation. Foreign trade University. 16. Dell’Ariccia, G., 1999. Exchange rate fluctuations and trade flows: Evidence from the European Union. IMF Staff Papers, Vol.46, No.3, paper 315-334.
17. Eaton, J., and Kortum, S., 1997. Technology and Bilateral Trade. NBER Working Paper, No.6253. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
18. Egger, P., 2000. A note on the proper econometric specification of the gravity equation. Economics Letters, Vol.66, No.1, paper 25-31.
19. Egger, P., 2005. Alternative techniques for estimation of cross-section gravity models. Review of international economics, Vol.13, No.5, page 881-891.
20. Flam, H., and Flanders, M. J., 2000. The young Ohlin on the theory of
“Interregional and International Trade”. Seminar Papers, Institute for International Economic Studies, No.684. Stockholm University, 1 May 2000.
21. Frankel, J., 1997. Regional Trading Blocs in the World Economic System. Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.
22. Hassan, M. K., 2000. Trade relations with SAARC countries and trade policies of Bangladesh. Journal of Economic Cooperation, Vol.21, No.3, page 99-151.
23. Hassan, M. K., 2001. Is SAARC a Viable Economic Block? Evidence from Gravity Model. Journal of Asian Economics, No.12, page 263-290.
24. Hausman, J. A., and Taylor, W. E., 1981. Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica, Vol.49, No.6, paper 1377-1398.
25. Helpman, E., and Krugman P. R., 1987. Market structure and foreign trade: Increasing return, imperfect competition, and international economy. London: MIT Press.
26. Jakab, Z. M., et al., 2001. How far has trade integration advanced?: An analysis of the actual and potential trade of three Central and Eastern European Countries. Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol.29, page 276-292.
27. Karemera, D., et al., 1999. A gravity model analysis of the benefits of economic integration in the Pacific Rim. Journal of Economic Integration, Vol.14, No.3, page 347-367.
28. Linnemann, H., 1966. An Econometric Study of International Trade Flows. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company (1966).
29. Martínez-Zarzoso, I., and Nowak-Lehmann, F., 2003. Augmented gravity model: An empirical application to Mercosur-European Union trade flows. Journal of Applied Economics, Vol.6, No.2, page 291-316.
30. Martínez-Zarzoso, I., and Nowak-Lehmann, D. F., 2004. Mercosur-European Union trade: How important is EU trade liberalisation for Mercosur's exports?. Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers 30. Göttingen: University of Göttingen, Department of Economics.
31. Mayer, T., and Zignago S., 2005. Market Access in Global and Regional Trade. CEPII Working Paper 2005-02.
32. McCallum, J., 1995. National borders matter: Canada-U.S. regional trade patterns. The American Economic Review, Vol.85, No.3, page 615-623.
33. McPherson, M. Q., and Trumbull, W. N., 2008. Rescuing observed fixed effects: Using the Hausman-Taylor Method for out-of-sample trade projections. The International Trade Journal, Vol.22, No.3, page 315-340.
34. Nguyen Khanh Doanh, 2009. AFTA and Trade Diversion: An Empirical Study for Vietnam and Singapore. International Area Review, Vol.12, No.1, page 163- 192.
35. Nguyen Thanh Thuy and Arcand, J. L., 2009. Gravity equation for different product groups: A study at product level. Development and Policy Research Center (DEPOCEN), No.2009/18 [pdf] Available at: (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
<http://www.depocenwp.org/upload/pubs/ThuyNguyen/Gravity%20Equation%
20for%20Different%20Product%20Groups_DEPOCENWP.pdf> [Accessed 19
February 2014].
36. Nguyen Tien Trung, 2002. Vietnam’s trade liberalization in the context of
ASEAN and AFTA. CAS Discussion paper, No.36, [pdf] Available at: <http://webh01.ua.ac.be/cas/PDF/CAS36.pdf> [Accessed 18 February 2014].
37. Paas, T., 2000. Gravity approach for modeling trade flows between Estonia and the main trading partners. Tartu University Press, No.721 [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.mtk.ut.ee/sites/default/files/mtk/toimetised/febawb4.pdf> [Accessed 19 February 2014].
38. Portugal-Perez, A., and Wilson, J. S., 2009. Why trade facilitation matters to Africa. World Trade Review, Vol.8, No.3, paper 379–416.
39. Rahman, M. M., 2003. A panel data analysis of Bangladesh’s trade: the gravity
model approach. University of Sydney [online] Available at:
<http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2003/papers/rahman.pdf> [Accessed 19 February 2014].
40. Rahman, M. M., 2009. Australia's global trade potential: evidence from the gravity model analysis. 2009 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program. Oxford, 24-26 June 2009.
41. Ricardo, D., 1821. On the principles of political economy and taxation. Ontario: Batoche Books. [e-book] Available at:
<http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/ricardo/Principles.pdf>b[Accesse d 19 February 2014].
42. Rose, A. K., 1999. One money, one market: The effect of common currencies on trade. Seminar Papers, Institute for International Economic Studies, No.678. Stockholm University, 11 September 1999.
43. Sandberg, H. M., 2004. The impact of historical and regional linkages on free trade in The Americas: A gravity model analysis across sectors. American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. American Agricultural Economics Association, Denver, Colorado, 1-4 August 2004.
44. Sharma, S. C., and Chua, S.Y., 2000. ASEAN: Economic integration and intra- regional trade. Applied Economics Letters, Vol.7, No.3, page 165-169.
45. Smith, A., 2000. The wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library. [e-book] Available at:
<http://www.amazon.in/gp/product/0679783369?ie=UTF8&tag=goodreads_in-
20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0679783369&Sub
scriptionId=1MGPYB6YW3HWK55XCGG2> [Accessed 19 February 2014].
46. Sohn Chan-Hyun and Lee Hongshik (2006). How FTAs affect income levels of member countries, World Economy, vol. 29, pp.1737-1757. 37.
47. Soloaga, I., and Winters, L. A., 2001. Regionalism in the nineties: What effect on trade?. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol.12, No.1, paper 1-29.
48. Tang, D., 2003. The effect of European integration on trade with the APEC countries: 1981–2000. Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol.27, No.2, paper 262- 278.
49. Thai Do Tri, 2006. A gravity model for trade between Vietnam and twenty-three European countries. PhD thesis. Dalarna University.
50. Thomas Chaney, 2013. The Gravity Equation in International Trade An Explanation. CEPR Discussion Papers, No. 9613.
51. Tinbergen, J., 1962. Shaping the World Economy. New York: The 20th Century Fund.
52. Thursby, J. G., and Thursby, M., C., 1987. Bilateral trade flows, the linder hypothesis, and exchange risk. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.66, No.3, page 488-495.
53. Verbeek, M. J. C. M., 2012. A Guide to Modern Econometrics, 3th edition. Great Britain: Antony Rowe Ltd. [e-book] Available at:
<http://www.google.com.vn/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uEFm6pAJZhoC&oi=fnd& pg=PR13&dq=a+guide+to+modern+economics+verbeek&ots=8hMtIhxFs7&sig=x 2TnD8jOCthQZcOGdRAWZjjq4Jo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=a%20guide%20to (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
%20modern%20economics%20verbeek&f=false> [Accessed 26 February 2014].
54. Vo Tri Thanh and Nguyen Anh Duong, 2011. Revisiting exports and foreign direct investment in Vietnam. Asian Economic Policy Review, Vol.6, No.1, page 112-131.
PH L C
Ph l că1.ăCánăcơnăth ngăm i gi a Vi tăNamăvƠăcácăn căTPPăgiaiăđo n 2000-2012.
năv: USD
N m Nh păkh u Xu tăkh u Cánăcơnăth ngăm i
2000 6,155,411,000 6,033,706,000 (121,705,000) 2001 6,030,253,558 6,180,663,501 150,409,943 2002 6,613,039,176 7,760,100,117 1,147,060,941 2003 8,425,147,421 10,037,414,588 1,612,267,167 2004 10,278,974,514 13,042,013,319 2,763,038,805 2005 11,618,229,950 16,577,796,055 4,959,566,105 2006 15,085,215,973 20,506,274,624 5,421,058,651 2007 19,650,712,157 24,839,235,161 5,188,523,004 2008 25,067,517,243 30,776,143,050 5,708,625,807 2009 19,306,860,126 25,217,906,163 5,911,046,037 2010 22,974,681,630 30,481,247,095 7,506,565,465 2011 28,722,420,368 37,584,730,524 8,862,310,156 2012 29,834,743,052 45,215,247,795 15,380,504,743
Ngu n: Tác gi tính toán và t ng h p theo d li u t ắC ăs d li uăth ngăm i c a Liên Hi p Qu c (UN Comtrade database)”.
Ph l c 2. Th ng kê mô t d li u b ng
Ngu n: tác gi t ng h p t d li u nghiên c u d a trên ph n m m STATA 11.
Ph l c 3. K t qu căl ng pooled OLS
Ngu n: tác gi t ng h p t d li u nghiên c u d a trên ph n m m STATA 11.
. within .0806259 -.5664336 .4335664 T = 13 between .4952708 0 1 n = 11 BTAijF~j overall .3566434 .4806919 0 1 N = 143 within .1416158 7.290311 7.940899 T = 13 between 2.232796 3.370919 9.575114 n = 11 ln_Erij overall 7.673162 2.141059 3.135494 9.74373 N = 143 within .0538502 16.70887 16.98566 T = 13 between 1.862653 12.82878 19.51319 n = 11 ln_POPj overall 16.82828 1.783025 12.71229 19.56463 N = 143 within .0418067 18.16748 18.30162 T = 13 between 0 18.23656 18.23656 n = 11 ln_POPi overall 18.23656 .0418067 18.16748 18.30162 N = 143 within 0 8.865326 8.865326 T = 13 between .9054433 7.618742 9.850878 n = 11 ln_Dij overall 8.865326 .8663408 7.618742 9.850878 N = 143 within .2250009 26.46627 27.42249 T = 13 between 1.803964 23.60968 30.20866 n = 11 ln_Yj overall 26.91527 1.740661 23.37039 30.41878 N = 143 within .3213151 25.54102 26.54103 T = 13 between 3.73e-15 26.0603 26.0603 n = 11 ln_Yi overall 26.0603 .3213151 25.54102 26.54103 N = 143 within 1.040731 17.93068 24.89253 T-bar = 12.9091 between 2.426747 15.55272 23.02538 n = 11 ln_Tij overall 20.18811 2.522195 13.29529 23.92872 N = 142 Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Observations . xtsum ln_Tij ln_Yi ln_Yj ln_Dij ln_POPi ln_POPj ln_Erij BTAijFTAij
_cons 505.2407 978.0578 0.52 0.606 -1429.187 2439.669 BTAijFTAij -.6383322 .3788542 -1.68 0.094 -1.38764 .1109754 ln_Erij .134667 .080972 1.66 0.099 -.0254815 .2948155 ln_POPj .118394 .2811511 0.42 0.674 -.4376739 .6744619 ln_POPi -35.34939 65.86476 -0.54 0.592 -165.6184 94.91962 ln_Dij -1.536354 .2182935 -7.04 0.000 -1.968101 -1.104608 ln_Yj 1.072369 .2702868 3.97 0.000 .537789 1.606949 ln_Yi 5.431388 8.574822 0.63 0.528 -11.52811 22.39089 ln_Tij Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] Total 896.966807 141 6.36146672 Root MSE = 1.4824 Adj R-squared = 0.6546 Residual 294.461444 134 2.19747347 R-squared = 0.6717 Model 602.505363 7 86.0721947 Prob > F = 0.0000 F( 7, 134) = 39.17 Source SS df MS Number of obs = 142
Ph l c 4. K t qu căl ng FEM
Ngu n: tác gi t ng h p t d li u nghiên c u d a trên ph n m m STATA 11.
Ph l c 5. K t qu căl ng REM
(Tr c khi x lý v n đ t ng quan chu i và ph ng sai c a sai s thay đ i)
Ngu n: tác gi t ng h p t d li u nghiên c u d a trên ph n m m STATA 11.
Ph c l c 6. Ki măđnh Wald test 1
Ngu n: tác gi t ng h p t d li u nghiên c u d a trên ph n m m STATA 11.
F test that all u_i=0: F(10, 125) = 20.03 Prob > F = 0.0000 rho .91741907 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
sigma_e .95148968 sigma_u 3.1713786 _cons 404.1267 638.2256 0.63 0.528 -859.001 1667.254 BTAijFTAij 1.371855 1.009971 1.36 0.177 -.6270028 3.370712 ln_Erij 1.286703 .6015529 2.14 0.034 .0961554 2.477251 ln_POPj 1.981242 3.760133 0.53 0.599 -5.460528 9.423012 ln_POPi -31.21961 43.32858 -0.72 0.473 -116.9722 54.53302 ln_Dij (omitted) ln_Yj .102889 1.184303 0.09 0.931 -2.240994 2.446772 ln_Yi 5.329585 5.716617 0.93 0.353 -5.98431 16.64348 ln_Tij Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] corr(u_i, Xb) = -0.8317 Prob > F = 0.0000 F(6,125) = 7.28 overall = 0.4247 max = 13 between = 0.4850 avg = 12.9 R-sq: within = 0.2590 Obs per group: min = 12 Group variable: Quocgia1 Number of groups = 11 Fixed-effects (within) regression Number of obs = 142
rho .19619285 (fraction of variance due to u_i)
sigma_e .95148968 sigma_u .4700778 _cons 342.9665 728.3323 0.47 0.638 -1084.539 1770.472 BTAijFTAij -.3780538 .5274896 -0.72 0.474 -1.411914 .6558068 ln_Erij .1497721 .1195885 1.25 0.210 -.0846172 .3841613 ln_POPj .2290548 .4122481 0.56 0.578 -.5789367 1.037046 ln_POPi -24.48255 49.05148 -0.50 0.618 -120.6217 71.65659 ln_Dij -1.446452 .321765 -4.50 0.000 -2.0771 -.8158042 ln_Yj .9727791 .3961009 2.46 0.014 .1964356 1.749123 ln_Yi 4.046167 6.395017 0.63 0.527 -8.487836 16.58017 ln_Tij Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] corr(u_i, X) = 0 (assumed) Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Random effects u_i ~ Gaussian Wald chi2(7) = 141.56 overall = 0.6698 max = 13 between = 0.7629 avg = 12.9 R-sq: within = 0.2167 Obs per group: min = 12 Group variable: Quocgia1 Number of groups = 11