Winners and losers in Vietnam equitisation programs
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.
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.
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.:
- 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.
- Miljkovic, Dragan, 2002. "Privatizing state farms in Yugoslavia," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 169-179, May.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- De Fraja, Giovanni, 1991. "Efficiency and Privatisation in Imperfectly Competitive Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 311-21, March.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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: (Shamier, Wendy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.