Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://digital.lib.ueh.edu.vn/handle/UEH/55231
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTruong Dong Loc-
dc.contributor.otherNgo My Tran-
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-14T11:02:16Z-
dc.date.available2017-09-14T11:02:16Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.issn1859 -1124-
dc.identifier.urihttp://digital.lib.ueh.edu.vn/handle/UEH/55231-
dc.identifier.urihttp://jabes.ueh.edu.vn/Home/SearchArticle?article_Id=cfbe65f6-df1b-4560-8552-34f008248e43-
dc.description.abstractThe main objective of this study is to measure the impact of equitization on firm performance in Vietnam. The dataset, retrieved from the survey on enterprises conducted by the General Statistics Office of Vietnam (GSO), consists of 301 equitized state-owned firms and 127 unequitized state-owned firms during the period from 2007 to 2010. By using propensity score matching (PSM) combined with difference in differences (DID) approach, we find that equitization has positive impacts on the ratio of income before tax to total assets and the ratio of income before tax to sales. Moreover, this study reveals that debt ratio, total asset turnover, and the number of employees have significantly decreased after equitization. However, no evidence is found regarding the effect of equitization on productivity of equitized firms.-
dc.formatPortable Document Format (PDF)-
dc.publisherTrường Đại học Kinh tế Tp. Hồ Chí Minh-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Economic Development-
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJED, Vol.23(3)-
dc.subjectEquitization-
dc.subjectFirm performance-
dc.subjectPSM and DID.-
dc.titleImpact of equitization on performance of enterprises in Vietnam-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.relation.referenceBoubakri, N., & Cosset, J.-C.(1998). The financial and operating performance of newly privatised firms:Evidence from developing countries. Journal of Finance, 53(3), 1081–1110.-
dc.relation.referenceBoubakri, N., & Cosset, J.-C.(2002). Does privatisation meet theexpectations in developing countries? A survey and some evidence from Africa. Journalof African Economies, 11(1),111–140.-
dc.relation.referenceBoubakri, N., Cosset, J.-C., &Guedhami, O. (2004). Privatisation, corporate governance and economicenvironment: Firm-level evidence from Asia. Pacific-BasinFinance Journal, 12(1), 65–90.-
dc.relation.referenceBoycko, M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1996). A theory ofprivatisation. Economic Journal, 106(435), 309–319.-
dc.relation.referenceClaessens, S., & Djankov, S. (1999a). Ownership concentration andcorporate performance in the Czech Republic. Journal of Comparative Economics, 27(3), 498–513.-
dc.relation.referenceClaessens, S., & Djankov, S. (1999b). Enterprise performance andmanagement turnover in the Czech Republic. EuropeanEconomic Review, 43(4-6), 1115–1124.-
dc.relation.referenceClaessens, S., & Djankov, S. (2002). Privatization benefits inEastern Europe. Journal of PublicEconomics,83(2002), 307–324.-
dc.relation.referenceDean, J. W., & Andreyeva, T. (2001). Privatisation, ownershipstructure and company performance: The case of Ukraine. Journal for Institutional Innovation, Development and Transition, 5, 62–72.-
dc.relation.referenceDewenter, K. L., & Malatesta, P. H. (2001). State-owned andprivately owned firms: An empirical analysis of profitability, leverage, andlabor intensity. The American EconomicReview, 91(1), 320–334.-
dc.relation.referenceD’Souza, J., & Megginson, W. L.(2001). The financial and operatingperformance of privatised firms during the 1990s’. The Journal ofFinance, 54(4), 1397–1438.-
dc.relation.referenceFrydman, R., Gray, C., Hessel, M., & Rapaczynski, A. (1999). Whendoes privatization work? The impacts of private ownership on corporateperformance in the transition economies. QuarterlyJournal of Economics, 114(4),1153–1191.-
dc.relation.referenceHarper, J. T. (2002). The performanceof privatized firms in the Czech Republic. Journal of Banking & Finance,26(4), 621–649.-
dc.relation.referenceKikeri, S., Nellis, J., & Shirley,M. (1992). Privatisation: The lessons ofexperience. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved fromhttp://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1992/08/ 440510/privatization-lessons-experience-
dc.relation.referenceLa Porta, R., &López-de-Silanes, F. (1999). The benefits of privatisation: Evidence from Mexico. QuarterlyJournal of Economics, 114(4),1193–1241.-
dc.relation.referenceMathur, I., & Banchuenvijit, W. (2007). The effects of privatization onthe performance of newly privatized firms in emerging markets. Emerging Markets Review, 8(2), 134–146.-
dc.relation.referenceMegginson, W. L., Nash, R. C., &van Randenborgh, M. (1994). The financial and operating performance of newlyprivatised firms: An international empirical analysis. The Journal of Finance,49(2), 403–452.-
dc.relation.referenceMegginson, W. L., & Netter, J. M.(2001). From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatisation. Journalof Economic Literature, 39(2),321–389.-
dc.relation.referenceNgo,M. T., Nonneman, W., & Jorissen, A. (2015). Privatization of Vietnamesefirms and its effects on firm performance. AsianEconomic and Financial Review, 5(2),202–217.-
dc.relation.referenceOmran,M. (2004). The performance of state-owned enterprises and newly privatizedfirms: Does privatization really matter? WorldDevelopment, 32(6), 1019–1041.-
dc.relation.referenceParker, D., & Kirkpatrick, C.(2005). Privatisation in developing countries: A review of the evidence and thepolicy lessons. Journal of DevelopmentStudies, 41(4), 513–541.-
dc.relation.referencePivovarsky, A. (2001). How does privatization work? Ownershipconcentration and enterprise performance in Ukraine (IMF Working PaperWP/01/42). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.-
dc.relation.referencePohl, G., Anderson, R. E., Claessens,S., & Djankov, S. (1997).Privatization and restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence andpolicy options (World Bank Technical Paper, 368).Retrieved fromSSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=37369 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.37369-
dc.relation.referenceSun, Q., & Tong, H. S. (2002). Malaysianprivatization: A comprehensive study. FinancialManagement, 31(4), 79–105.-
dc.relation.referenceTruong, D. L., Lanjouw, G., & Lensink, R. (2006). The impact ofprivatization on firm performance in a transition economy: The case of Vietnam.Economics of Transition, 14(2),349–389.-
dc.relation.referenceTruong, D. L., Vo, V. D., & Le, L.H. (2006). Impact of equitization on performance of enterprises in the MekongRiver Delta (in Vietnamese). EconomicStudies, No.332, 64–70.-
dc.relation.referenceWalsh, P., & Whelan, C. (2001). Firm performance and the politicaleconomy of corporate governance: Survey evidence for Bulgaria, Hungary,Slovakia and Slovenia. Economic Systems,25(2), 85–112.-
dc.relation.referenceWeiss, A., & Nikitin, G. (1998). Performanceof Czech companies by ownership structure (University of Michigan DavidsonInstitute Working Paper, 186). MI: William Davidson Institute at the University ofMichigan.-
dc.relation.referenceYarrow, G., King, M., Mairesse, J.,& Melitz, J. (1986). Privatisation in theory andpractice. Economic Policy, 1(2),323–377.-
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi.org/10.24311/jabes/2016.23.3.02-
dc.format.firstpage36-
dc.format.lastpage56-
item.fulltextOnly abstracts-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
Appears in Collections:JABES in English
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.