IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Winners and losers in Vietnam equitisation programs

  • Le, Hoang Cuong
  • Cabalu, Helen
  • Salim, Ruhul

This article develops a computable general equilibrium model of Vietnam to assess the long-run likely effects of the country's equitisation programs on its national economic outcomes and industries. Equitisation is found to be pro-growth as reflected in its contribution to increasing real GDP growth rate in the long run. In terms of industrial output growth rates, the winners include electrical, steel and other manufacturing, while the losers include rice and paddy, and oil, gas and petroleum. To achieve better economic outcomes, the coverage of equitisation should be extended to include medium to large state-owned enterprises across all industries.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Policy Modeling.

Volume (Year): 36 (2014)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 172-184

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jpolmo:v:36:y:2014:i:1:p:172-184
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Paul Cook & Yuichiro Uchida, 2003. "Privatisation and economic growth in developing countries," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(6), pages 121-154.
  2. Brainerd, Elizabeth, 2002. "Five Years after: The Impact of Mass Privatization on Wages in Russia, 1993-1998," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 160-190, March.
  3. Chan, Nguyen & Dung, Tran Kim & Ghosh, Madanmohan & Whalley, John, 2005. "Adjustment costs in labour markets and the distributional effects of trade liberalization: Analytics and calculations for Vietnam," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 1009-1024, December.
  4. Wu, Hsueh-Liang, 2006. "The policy-fit view on the efficiency effects of privatization," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 281-292, April.
  5. David Stuckler & Lawrence P. King, 2007. "Social Costs of Mass Privatization," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp890, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  6. Samuel P.S. Ho & Xiao-Yuan Dong & Paul Bowles & Fiona MacPhail, 2002. "Privatization and enterprise wage structures during transition: Evidence from rural industry in china," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 10(3), pages 659-688, November.
  7. De Fraja, Giovanni, 1991. "Efficiency and Privatisation in Imperfectly Competitive Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 311-21, March.
  8. Anwar, Sajid & Nguyen, Lan Phi, 2011. "Foreign direct investment and trade: The case of Vietnam," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 39-52, January.
  9. Miljkovic, Dragan, 2002. "Privatizing state farms in Yugoslavia," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 169-179, May.
  10. Anthony E. Boardman & Claude Laurin & Mark A. Moore & Aidan R. Vining, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Privatization of Canadian National Railway," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 35(1), pages 59-83, March.
  11. Narjess Boubakri & Jean-Claude Cosset, 1998. "The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(3), pages 1081-1110, 06.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jpolmo:v:36:y:2014:i:1:p:172-184. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.