International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 9 (September 2023), Pages: 139-149

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

The impacts of technological innovation and institutional quality on the productivity of Vietnamese manufacturing firms

 Author(s): 

 Quang Thai Dinh 1, Manh Trong Nguyen 2, Ha Thi Quach 3, Quy Tam Thuy Vo 4, Van Nguyen 5, *

 Affiliation(s):

 1Vietnam Law Dissemination Magazine, Hanoi City, Vietnam
 2Dai Nam Feng Shui Co., Ltd, Haiphong City, Vietnam
 3Faculty of Political Theory, Vietnam Maritime University, Haiphong City, Vietnam
 4Golden Startup Joint Stock Company, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
 5Faculty of Fundamental Science, Vietnam Maritime University, Haiphong City, Vietnam

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9754-7648

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.09.016

 Abstract:

This research aims to assess the pivotal role of total factor productivity (TFP) in shaping the performance of manufacturing enterprises in Vietnam. It systematically examines the influence of technological innovation and the quality of economic institutions on the TFP of these firms. Employing robust methodologies such as control function (CF) and feasible generalized least squares regression (FGLS) models, a comprehensive panel dataset of Vietnamese manufacturing companies is meticulously scrutinized. The data, meticulously sourced from the General Statistics Office of Vietnam and the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry, spans the five-year period from 2015 to 2019. The findings of this study elucidate several key insights. First, it reveals that the manufacturing landscape in Vietnam is predominantly characterized by labor-intensive operations, with an apparent trend toward increasing returns to scale. Furthermore, the study underscores that TFP's contribution to manufacturing output remains relatively modest, averaging at 1.933 over the period from 2015 to 2019. Additionally, it identifies a concerning decline in the average TFP score, along with a widening gap between firms, which tends to exacerbate during the study period. Finally, the research establishes a positive correlation between investments in production technology and the quality of economic governance within provincial governments in Vietnam, both of which significantly bolster the TFP of manufacturing firms.

 © 2023 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Total factor productivity, Control function approach, FGLS regression, Technology innovation, Institutional quality, Vietnamese manufacturing industry

 Article History: Received 19 April 2023, Received in revised form 30 August 2023, Accepted 30 August 2023

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Dinh QT, Nguyen MT, Quach HT, Vo QTT, and Nguyen V (2023). The impacts of technological innovation and institutional quality on the productivity of Vietnamese manufacturing firms. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(9): 139-149

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

----------------------------------------------   

 References (52)

  1. Acemoglu D, Johnson S, and Robinson JA (2005). Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth. Handbook of Economic Growth, 1: 385-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3   [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackerberg DA, Caves K, and Frazer G (2015). Identification properties of recent production function estimators. Econometrica, 83(6): 2411-2451. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA13408   [Google Scholar]
  3. Arendt L and Grabowski W (2017). Innovations, ICT and ICT‐ driven labour productivity in Poland: A firm level approach. Economics of Transition, 25(4): 723-758. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12135   [Google Scholar]
  4. Bach NT (2019). State owned enterprises and capital misallocation in Vietnam. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 24(3): 430-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2019.1616443   [Google Scholar]
  5. Beckmann MJ, Sato R, and Schupack M (1972). Alternative approaches to the estimation of production functions and of technical change. International Economic Review 13(1): 33-52. https://doi.org/10.2307/2525904   [Google Scholar]
  6. Binh QMQ and Le Thanh TUNG (2020). The effect of R&D expenditure on firm output: Empirical evidence from Vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(6): 379-385. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no6.379   [Google Scholar]
  7. Boerner K and Hainz C (2009). The political economy of corruption and the role of economic opportunities. Economics of Transition, 17(2): 213-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0351.2009.00354.x   [Google Scholar]
  8. Bond S and Soderbom M (2005). Adjustment costs and the identification of Cobb Douglas production functions (No. 05/04). IFS Working Papers No. 05/04, Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2005.0504   [Google Scholar]
  9. Botric V, Bozic L, and Broz T (2017). Explaining firm-level total factor productivity in post-transition: Manufacturing vs. services sector. Journal of International Studies, 10(3): 77-90. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-3/6   [Google Scholar]
  10. Comin D (2010). Total factor productivity. In: Durlauf SN and Blume LE (Eds.), Economic Growth: 260-263. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280823_32   [Google Scholar]
  11. Dewan S and Min CK (1997). The substitution of information technology for other factors of production: A firm level analysis. Management Science, 43(12): 1660-1675. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.12.1660   [Google Scholar]
  12. Dinh KC, Ngo TQ, and Nguyen DV (2023). Firm-level digital technology and total factor productivity in a developing country: Evidence from panel data in Vietnam. Cuadernos de Economía, 46(130): 42-56.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Doms ME, Jarmin RS, and Klimek SD (2004). Information technology investment and firm performance in US retail trade. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(7): 595-613. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859042000201911   [Google Scholar]
  14. Driffield NL, Mickiewicz T, and Temouri Y (2013). Institutional reforms, productivity and profitability: From rents to competition? Journal of Comparative Economics, 41(2): 583-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2012.08.001   [Google Scholar]
  15. Foster L, Haltiwanger JC, and Krizan CJ (2001). Aggregate productivity growth: Lessons from microeconomic evidence. In: Hulten CR, Dean ER, and Harper MJ (Eds.), New developments in productivity analysis: 303-372. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226360645.003.0008   [Google Scholar]
  16. Fredriksson PG and Svensson J (2003). Political instability, corruption and policy formation: The case of environmental policy. Journal of Public Economics, 87(7-8): 1383-1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00036-1   [Google Scholar]
  17. Friesenbichler K and Peneder M (2016). Innovation, competition and productivity firm-level evidence for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Economics of Transition, 24(3): 535-580. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12100   [Google Scholar]
  18. Griffith R, Huergo E, Mairesse J, and Peters B (2006). Innovation and productivity across four European countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(4): 483-498. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12722   [Google Scholar]
  19. Hall BH, Lotti F, and Mairesse J (2009). Innovation and productivity in SMEs: Empirical evidence for Italy. Small Business Economics, 33(1): 13-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9184-8   [Google Scholar]
  20. Hollenstein H (2004). Determinants of the adoption of information and communication technologies (ICT): An empirical analysis based on firm-level data for the Swiss business sector. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 15(3): 315-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2004.01.003   [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, and Mastruzzi M (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2): 220-246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200046   [Google Scholar]
  22. Lasagni A, Nifo A, and Vecchione G (2015). Firm productivity and institutional quality: Evidence from Italian industry. Journal of Regional Science, 55(5): 774-800. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12203   [Google Scholar]
  23. Le QC, Nguyen TPT, and Do TN (2020). State ownership, quality of sub-national governance, and total factor productivity of firms in Vietnam. Post-Communist Economies, 33(1): 133-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2020.1793608   [Google Scholar]
  24. Leibenstein H (1966). Allocative efficiency vs. "X-efficiency." The American Economic Review, 56(3): 392-415.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Levishon J and Petrin A (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. The Review of Economics Studies, 70(2): 317-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00246   [Google Scholar]
  26. Mijiyawa AG (2017). Drivers of structural transformation: The case of the manufacturing sector in Africa. World Development, 99: 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.007   [Google Scholar]
  27. Ngo QT and Nguyen CT (2020). Do export transitions differently affect firm productivity? Evidence across Vietnamese manufacturing sectors. Post-Communist Economies, 32(8): 1011-1037. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2019.1678098   [Google Scholar]
  28. Ngo T, Le T, Tran SH, Nguyen A, and Nguyen C (2019). Sources of the performance of manufacturing firms: Evidence from Vietnam. Post-Communist Economies, 31(6): 790-804. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2019.1607129   [Google Scholar]
  29. Nguyen HQ (2017). Business reforms and total factor productivity in Vietnamese manufacturing. Journal of Asian Economics, 51: 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2017.06.003   [Google Scholar]
  30. Nguyen TT and Van Dijk MA (2012). Corruption, growth, and governance: Private vs. state-owned firms in Vietnam. Journal of Banking and Finance, 36(11): 2935-2948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.03.027   [Google Scholar]
  31. Nguyen VT and Freeman N (2009). State-owned enterprises in Vietnam: Are they ‘crowding out’ the private sector? Post-Communist Economies, 21(2): 227-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631370902778674   [Google Scholar]
  32. Nifo A and Vecchione G (2014). Do institutions play a role in skilled migration? The case of Italy. Regional Studies, 48(10): 1628-1649. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.835799   [Google Scholar]
  33. North DC (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678   [Google Scholar]
  34. North DC (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 97-112. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97   [Google Scholar]
  35. OECD (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  36. Olley GS and Pakes A (1996). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica, 64: 1263-1297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171831   [Google Scholar]
  37. Quoc Trung NK (2021). Determinants of small and medium-sized enterprises performance: The evidence from Vietnam. Cogent Business and Management, 8(1): 1984626. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1984626   [Google Scholar]
  38. Raffo J, Lhuillery S, and Miotti L (2008). Northern and southern innovativity: A comparison across European and Latin American countries. The European Journal of Development Research, 20(2): 219-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810802060777   [Google Scholar]
  39. Romer PM (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2): S71-S102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725   [Google Scholar]
  40. Roper S, Du J, and Love JH (2008). Modelling the innovation value chain. Research Policy, 37(6-7): 961-977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.005   [Google Scholar]
  41. Rovigatti G and Mollisi V (2018). Theory and practice of total-factor productivity estimation: The control function approach using Stata. The Stata Journal, 18(3): 618-662. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1801800307   [Google Scholar]
  42. Saleem H, Shahzad M, Khan MB, and Khilji BA (2019). Innovation, total factor productivity and economic growth in Pakistan: A policy perspective. Journal of Economic Structures, 8(1): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-019-0134-6   [Google Scholar]
  43. Solow RM (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistic, 39(3): 312-320. https://doi.org/10.2307/1926047   [Google Scholar]
  44. Syverson C (2011). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49(2): 326-365. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.2.326   [Google Scholar]
  45. Tinbergen J (1942). Critical remarks on some business-cycle theories. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 10(2): 129-146. https://doi.org/10.2307/1905785   [Google Scholar]
  46. Tran TQ, Vu VH, Doan TT, and Tran DH (2016). Corruption, provincial institutions and manufacturing firm productivity: New evidence from a transitional economy. Estudios de Economía, 43(2): 199-215. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-52862016000200002   [Google Scholar]
  47. Tybout JR (2000). Manufacturing firms in developing countries: How well do they do, and why? Journal of Economic Literature, 38(1): 11-44. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.1.11   [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Beveren I (2012). Total factor productivity estimation: A practical review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(1): 98-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00631.x   [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Vu H, Tran TQ, Nguyen VT, and Lim S (2018). Corruption, types of corruption and firm financial performance: new evidence from a transitional economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 148: 847-858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3016-y   [Google Scholar]
  50. Wadho W and Chaudhry A (2018). Innovation and firm performance in developing countries: The case of Pakistani textile and apparel manufacturers. Research Policy, 47(7): 1283-1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.007   [Google Scholar]
  51. Wooldridge J (2009). On estimating firm-level production functions using proxy variables to control for unobservables. Economics Letters, 104: 1263-1298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2009.04.026   [Google Scholar]
  52. Xuan VN (2020). Factors affecting foreign direct investment: Evidence at foreign technology enterprises in Vietnam. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7(4): 21-28. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2020.04.004   [Google Scholar]