Trinity College Dublin
European Economics Association Conference
Gothenburg, August 2013
Trade liberalization, supply chains and
productivity
Carol Newman, Trinity College Dublin
John Rand, University of Copenhagen
Finn Tarp, UNU-WIDER and University of Copenhagen
Overview of paper

Explore the relationship between trade liberalization and firm
productivity using the case of Vietnam 2002-2010

Focus on the impact of imported intermediates on firm productivity

Key contributions:

Focus on effects through the supply chain distinguishing between
competition and productivity channels on import and non-import
firms

Introduce a new measure of supply chain linkages that measures
the extent of exposure of a sector to imports upstream using
Supply Use Tables

Exploit differences in the effects in competitive and concentrated
sectors and in the impact of imports into competitive and
concentrated upstream sectors.

We explicitly investigate the technology transfer channel as a
source of productivity growth for firms that import foreign inputs
Related Literature

Large empirical literature linking trade to productivity improvements
at the industry and firm level:



Tybout et al. (1991), Pavcnik (2002), Eslava et al. (2004), Fernandes (2007)
Specific evidence for imported inputs as a channel for productivity
growth provided by:

Kasahara and Rodrigue (2008) for Chile, Halpern et al. (2005) for
Hungary, Goldberg et al. (2008) for India

Amiti and Konings (2007) for Indonesia and that gains are achieved
through learning, variety and quality effects.
Some contradicting evidence provided by:

Van Biesebroeck (2003) no evidence that productivity improvements in
Columbia are due the use of foreign inputs

Muendler (2004) limited effects of foreign inputs on productivity in Brazil.
Description of mechanisms

Assume that both upstream and downstream sectors are
competitive.

An expansion of imports into a sector will increase competitive
pressures that will result in overall efficiency gains (Holmes and
Schmitz, 2001; Amiti and Konings, 2007).
 This will lead to a fall in the price of inputs for firms further
along the supply chain.

An expansion of imported intermediates will lead to technology
diffusion through greater variety, better quality inputs and new
technologies embodied in those inputs (Grossman and Helpman,
1991).
 These productivity effects will affect firms that import
intermediate – i.e. they may learn from importing
 This in turn might increase competitive pressure on downstream
non-import firms
Identification of mechanisms





Identification is complicated by the fact that data are only
available on the value of inputs and outputs
Physical productivity cannot be estimated and so we must
use a revenue based measures (see Foster et al, 2008).
Implication is that observed productivity changes will
embody both within-firm physical productivity gains and
changes in prices and/or mark-ups
We consider how the impact of an expansion of imports in
upstream differs for competitive versus concentrated sectors
Focusing on competitive sectors allows us to detect withinfirm effects
Identification of mechanisms

Competition Effects

Impact of decline in costs in upstream sectors:

In concentrated downstream sectors lower costs will lead to
larger mark-ups as there will be no competitive pressures to
erode costs. This will look like productivity improvements on a
revenue based measure of productivity.

In competitive downstream sectors price competition will erode
away any cost advantages. Should observe no change in
measured productivity downstream through this mechanism.
Identification of mechanisms

Productivity Effects:

Detecting productivity improvements through the availability of
more variety, better quality inputs, or embodied technologies:

Can be isolated by testing whether importing firms in
competitive sectors experience productivity improvements.

BUT:
Upstream sectors will vary in how competitive they are.
Impact of imports on prices upstream will be more pronounced
in competitive upstream sectors
Cannot distinguish between competition and productivity effects
in these sectors



Identification of mechanisms

Productivity Effects:

Detecting productivity improvements through the availability of
more variety, better quality inputs, or embodied technologies:



HOWEVER:
An expansion of imports into concentrated upstream sectors
should not also lead to price effects
Any observed productivity effects on firms in downstream
sectors will be associated with real productivity as opposed to
competition effects
Identification of mechanisms

REALLOCATION EFFECTS:

Impact of productivity improvements experienced by competing
import firms on non-import firms downstream



If import firms experience productivity improvements due to
technology transfers, then downstream firms will find it more
difficult to compete
Only the most efficient firms will survive.
Least efficient will exit. Overall productivity will improve due to
reallocation of resources toward more efficient firms (Melitz,
2003)
Empirical Approach

Step 1: Productivity measurement

Index Number approach - productivity measured relative to a
reference point which we take as the mean level of productivity in
a given sector in a given year

To analyse changes over time we chain link productivity differential
to changes in the reference level of productivity from year to year
_______

 t  ________ _________
 ijt   ln Yijt  ln Y jt     ln Y jt  ln Y jt 1 

  2 

k
_____
_________
1


   s mijt  s mjt  ln X mijt  ln X mjt 


m 1 2 
1  ____ _______ ________ __________ 
   s mjt  s mjt1  ln X mjt  ln X mjt1 


  2 m 1 2 
t
k
Yijt output of firm i in sector j in year t
X mijt amount of input m used by the firm
smijt expenditure of firm on input m as a share of firm's total expenditure
Empirical Approach

Step two: fixed effects regression

Regress productivity on a series of indicator variables that capture
mechanisms

Also include an indicator of trade liberalization (accession to WTO)
given that competition effects associated with an expansion in
imports likely to be different under different trade regimes

Baseline:
TFP ijt  α1 Im_ upijt  α2 Im_ firmijt * Im_ up
 β1 Im_ upijt * WTO  β2 Im_ firmijt * WTO * Im_ up
 δ1 Im_ firmijt  δ2WTO  δ3 Im_ firmijt * WTO
 ξX ijt  ζZ jt  αi  φ j  τ t  eijt
Empirical Approach

Interact all import variables with sector-level measure of
concentration:
2
HHI jt  in1 sijt
Empirical Approach

Overall impact of change in imports into upstream sectors
given by:
TFP ijt
 Im_ upijt
 α1  α2 Im_ firmijt  α3 HHI  α4 Im_ firmijt * HHI
 β1WTO  β2 Im_ firmijt * WTO  β3WTO * HHI  β4 Im_ firmijt * WTO * HHI

Main predictions:







Competition Effects
Non-import firms: α1  0 , α1  β1  0
Import firms: α2  0 , α2  β2  0
Productivity Effects:
Import firms: α2  0 , α2  β2  0
Reallocation Effects:
Non-import firms α1  0 , α1  β1  0
Vietnamese Context

The opening up of the Vietnamese economy began in 1986
with the adoption of a range of policy measures under doi
moi (renovation) in particular relating to trade liberalisation
and the promotion of foreign direct investment (FDI)

Trade liberalization took the form of the removal of export
taxes and non-tariff barriers and the negotiation of various
trade agreements with ASEAN, the US and the EU which
ultimately lead to WTO accession in 2007

Significant growth in exports and imports over 2000s:

Steady growth in both is evident throughout the 2000s but in
particular post WTO accession in 2007
Trade in Vietnam
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
2002
2003
2004
2005
Exports/GDP
2006
2007
2008
2009
Imports/GDP
Source: General Statistics Office Vietnam, National Accounts
2010
Data



Vietnamese Enterprise Survey collected annually by the
GSO for 2002 to 2010
Data gathered on population of all registered enterprises in
Vietnam with 30 employees or more and representative
sample of smaller firms
47,556 firms over 10 year period totaling 141,262
observations

Export and import data at 4-digit level taken from
COMTRADE

Supply Use Tables for Vietnam in 2007 to measure inputoutput linkages along the supply chain
Manufacturing firm characteristics
Number of
firms
Size
Employees
Entrants
(%)
Exits
(%)
Foreign
(%)
State
(%)
Import
(%)
2002
13,663
156
24.83
17.35
11.89
10.43
12.76
2003
15,401
159
26.68
15.39
12.35
8.84
13.44
2004
18,238
151
28.55
11.91
12.13
6.97
13.33
2005
21,618
141
25.68
15.88
11.81
5.58
13.38
2006
23,803
136
23.60
13.93
12.29
4.67
13.38
2007
28,821
133
28.92
14.84
11.85
3.95
12.23
2008
36,363
113
32.50
21.50
10.64
3.13
10.12
2009
39,101
108
26.99
18.31
10.82
2.96
10.67
2010
38,217
120
16.42
-
10.86
2.76
14.57
Measuring supply chain linkages





Vietnam Supply-Use Tables (SUT) for 2007
The SUT maps the use of 138 commodities in 112
production activities
We link these production activities to the 4-digit ISIC codes
used in the Enterprise Survey to produce 97 comparable
sector codes
The SUT data are used to construct a sets of weights that
captures upstream linkages between sectors, whereby for
each sector i, their link with upstream sector j is the
proportional contribution of output from sector j to its total
input base
Weights used to compute a weighted average of imports
from upstream sectors
Exposure to imports through supply chain
Sector
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
2002
28.10
11.24
5.55
5.92
36.34
24.60
1.69
40.53
30.12
38.74
12.12
18.61
7.04
17.03
35.60
6.07
19.66
0.58
2003
9.98
4.58
2.33
4.33
11.10
6.12
0.50
14.27
11.22
18.82
6.23
7.53
2.65
6.82
15.99
15.24
8.62
0.04
2004
12.62
7.13
3.47
4.15
12.13
5.64
0.55
15.42
12.09
20.70
9.67
9.59
3.87
8.92
19.07
6.99
10.98
0.05
2005
12.32
7.24
3.60
3.37
13.63
9.19
0.62
16.28
11.77
20.61
9.88
9.98
3.91
8.93
19.77
8.21
11.24
0.05
2006
10.11
6.28
2.95
3.56
12.54
5.24
0.33
15.24
11.52
20.23
9.29
9.97
3.23
8.11
18.79
8.39
11.43
0.04
2007
11.96
7.44
2.85
3.32
12.95
6.22
0.52
14.70
11.45
18.86
9.46
9.51
3.56
8.55
18.11
11.43
11.33
0.03
2008
10.98
7.07
2.71
2.84
11.97
7.45
0.40
13.29
10.38
16.81
7.86
8.42
3.10
8.17
16.68
10.11
10.01
0.02
2009
7.44
4.02
1.47
2.37
8.92
4.32
0.38
8.82
6.81
10.89
5.44
5.01
1.99
5.17
10.44
8.68
6.21
0.02
2010
5.76
3.24
0.88
1.97
7.04
3.73
0.29
7.72
6.37
9.38
3.84
4.38
1.50
3.60
7.77
5.29
5.57
0.01
Empirical Approach

Control Variables:

Firm specific factors:
1. Import firm
2. Export firm
3. Exit firm (in subsequent period)
4. Switch firm (in subsequent period)
5. Capital-labor ratio
Also estimate models using
balanced panel as additional
control for reallocation effects
6. Size of firm
7. Foreign-owned firm
8. State-owned firm

Sector specific factors:
1. Average capital-labor ratio
2. Average size of firms in sector
3. Proportion of revenue generated by foreign owned firms
4. Proportion of revenue generated by state owned firms
5. Concentration Ratio
αβ11342
Results – competition and productivity effects
(1)
(2)
(3)
Balanced
Prop imports upstream
Import Firm*Imports upstream
Concentrated pre WTO:
0.002**
0.000
0.004***
-0.002
0.005***
-0.003*
HHI*Prop imports upstream
HHI*Import Firm*Imports upstream
Competitive post WTO:
-0.018**
0.003
-0.035**
0.025**
-0.043**
0.035**
WTO* Imports upstream
WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Concentrated post WTO:
-0.003***
0.000
-0.004***
0.0005
-0.005***
0.000
HHI*WTO* Imports upstream
HHI*WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Upstream concentration controls
R-squared
Firms
n
0.082***
-0.043***
No
0.537
47,602
141,876
0.104***
-0.055***
Yes
0.526
47,602
141,876
0.153***
-0.050**
Yes
0.874
4,832
35,749
Competitive pre WTO:
αβ11342
Detecting productivity gains to import firms
α2  0 , α2  β2  0
(1)
(2)
(3)
Balanced
Prop imports upstream
Import Firm*Imports upstream
Concentrated pre WTO:
0.002**
0.000
0.004***
-0.002
0.005***
-0.003*
HHI*Prop imports upstream
HHI*Import Firm*Imports upstream
Competitive post WTO:
-0.018**
0.003
-0.035**
0.025**
-0.043**
0.035**
WTO* Imports upstream
WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Concentrated post WTO:
-0.003***
0.000
-0.004***
0.0005
-0.005***
0.000
HHI*WTO* Imports upstream
HHI*WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Upstream concentration controls
R-squared
Firms
n
0.082***
-0.043***
No
0.537
47,602
141,876
0.104***
-0.055***
Yes
0.526
47,602
141,876
0.153***
-0.050**
Yes
0.874
4,832
35,749
Competitive pre WTO:
αβ11342
Detecting productivity gains to import firms
Upstream Concentration Differential:
Competitive Downstream:
Prop imports upstream
Import Firm
Import Firm*Imports upstream
WTO* Imports upstream
WTO* Import Firm
WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Concentrated Downstream:
HHI*Prop imports upstream
HHI*Import Firm
HHI*Import Firm*Imports upstream
HHI*WTO* Imports upstream
HHI*WTO* Import Firm
HHI*WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
R-squared
Firms
n
(2)
(3)
-0.026**
-0.012
0.023**
0.011
-0.100
-0.002
-0.033*
-0.071
0.035**
0.055**
-0.129
-0.011
0.231
0.803
-0.295**
-0.156
-0.741
0.103
0.315
1.081
-0.433**
-1.520***
-0.809
-0.220
0.526
47,602
141,876
0.874
4,832
35,749
αβ11342
Detecting productivity gains to import firms
Upstream Concentration Differential:
Competitive Downstream:
Prop imports upstream
Import Firm
Import Firm*Imports upstream
WTO* Imports upstream
WTO* Import Firm
WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Concentrated Downstream:
HHI*Prop imports upstream
HHI*Import Firm
HHI*Import Firm*Imports upstream
HHI*WTO* Imports upstream
HHI*WTO* Import Firm
HHI*WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
R-squared
Firms
n
(2)
(3)
-0.026**
-0.012
0.023**
0.011
-0.100
-0.002
-0.033*
-0.071
0.035**
0.055**
-0.129
-0.011
0.231
0.803
-0.295**
-0.156
-0.741
0.103
0.315
1.081
-0.433**
-1.520***
-0.809
-0.220
0.526
47,602
141,876
0.874
4,832
35,749
αβ11342
Detecting competition and reallocation effects
among non-import firms
(1)
(2)
(3)
Balanced
Prop imports upstream
Import Firm*Imports upstream
Concentrated pre WTO:
0.002**
0.000
0.004***
-0.002
0.005***
-0.003*
HHI*Prop imports upstream
HHI*Import Firm*Imports upstream
Competitive post WTO:
-0.018**
0.003
-0.035**
0.025**
-0.043**
0.035**
WTO* Imports upstream
WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Concentrated post WTO:
-0.003***
0.000
-0.004***
0.0005
-0.005***
0.000
HHI*WTO* Imports upstream
HHI*WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Upstream concentration controls
R-squared
Firms
n
0.082***
-0.043***
No
0.537
47,602
141,876
0.104***
-0.055***
Yes
0.526
47,602
141,876
0.153***
-0.050**
Yes
0.874
4,832
35,749
Competitive pre WTO:
αβ11342
Detecting competition and reallocation effects
among non-import firms
α1  0,α1  β1  0
(1)
(2)
(3)
Balanced
Prop imports upstream
Import Firm*Imports upstream
Concentrated pre WTO:
0.002**
0.000
0.004***
-0.002
0.005***
-0.003*
HHI*Prop imports upstream
HHI*Import Firm*Imports upstream
Competitive post WTO:
-0.018**
0.003
-0.035**
0.025**
-0.043**
0.035**
WTO* Imports upstream
WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Concentrated post WTO:
-0.003***
0.000
-0.004***
0.0005
-0.005***
0.000
HHI*WTO* Imports upstream
HHI*WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Upstream concentration controls
R-squared
Firms
n
0.082***
-0.043***
No
0.537
47,602
141,876
0.104***
-0.055***
Yes
0.526
47,602
141,876
0.153***
-0.050**
Yes
0.874
4,832
35,749
Competitive pre WTO:
αβ11342
Results – reallocation effects
(1)
Exit
(2)
Switch Sector
(3)
Start Importing
0.001***
0.000
0.002
-0.001
0.001*
HHI*Prop imports upstream
HHI*Import Firm*Imports upstream
Competitive post WTO:
-0.005
0.003
0.003
0.002
-0.004*
WTO* Imports upstream
WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Concentrated post WTO:
-0.001*
0.001
0.001
-0.001
0.0005
0.005
0.007
0.004
0.010
0.002
0.075
45,990
137,781
0.074
45,990
137,781
0.110
45,820
127,686
Competitive pre WTO:
Prop imports upstream
Import Firm*Imports upstream
Concentrated pre WTO:
HHI*WTO* Imports upstream
HHI*WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
R-squared
Firms
n
αβ11342
Results – reallocation effects
(1)
Exit
(2)
Switch Sector
(3)
Start Importing
0.001***
0.000
0.002
-0.001
0.001*
HHI*Prop imports upstream
HHI*Import Firm*Imports upstream
Competitive post WTO:
-0.005
0.003
0.003
0.002
-0.004*
WTO* Imports upstream
WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
Concentrated post WTO:
-0.001*
0.001
0.001
-0.001
0.0005
0.005
0.007
0.004
0.010
0.002
0.075
45,990
137,781
0.074
45,990
137,781
0.110
45,820
127,686
Competitive pre WTO:
Prop imports upstream
Import Firm*Imports upstream
Concentrated pre WTO:
HHI*WTO* Imports upstream
HHI*WTO* Import Firm * Imports upstream
R-squared
Firms
n
Technology Channel

Further investigation of productivity spillovers for import
firms post-WTO accession

Indicator for whether firm has any international suppliers
Indicator for whether relationship with international supplier
resulted in technology transfers


Perform same analysis using 2 years of data and including
these indicator variables
αβ11342
Results – technology spillovers
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.040*
0.021
-0.005
0.047**
0.033
-0.010**
-0.014
-0.013
-0.023
-0.022*
-0.009
-0.003
0.033
-0.010*
Competitive:
Prop imports upstream
Int supplier
Int supplier * Imports upstream
Int supplier tech transfers
Int supplier tech transfers * Imports upstream
Concentrated
HHI*Prop imports upstream
HHI* Int supplier
HHI* Int supplier*Imports upstream
HHI* Int supplier tech transfers
HHI*Int supplier tech transfers*Imports upstream
R-squared
Firms
N
-0.097
-0.171
0.056
0.056
-0.587*
0.095*
0.768
7,830
12,530
0.770
7,830
12,530
0.803
2,848
4,104
0.803
2,848
4,104
0.807
2,848
4,104
αβ11342
Results – technology spillovers
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.040*
0.021
-0.005
0.047**
0.033
-0.010**
-0.014
-0.013
-0.023
-0.022*
-0.009
-0.003
0.033
-0.010*
Competitive:
Prop imports upstream
Int supplier
Int supplier * Imports upstream
Int supplier tech transfers
Int supplier tech transfers * Imports upstream
Concentrated
HHI*Prop imports upstream
HHI* Int supplier
HHI* Int supplier*Imports upstream
HHI* Int supplier tech transfers
HHI*Int supplier tech transfers*Imports upstream
R-squared
Firms
N
-0.097
-0.171
0.056
0.056
-0.587*
0.095*
0.768
7,830
12,530
0.770
7,830
12,530
0.803
2,848
4,104
0.803
2,848
4,104
0.807
2,848
4,104
Summary of key findings

We find little evidence of pure productivity improvements
associated with importing intermediates in the post-WTO period.

We find some suggestive evidence of positive productivity impacts
in the pre-WTO period that are likely attributed to higher quality
imported inputs, more imported varieties or technology transfers.

Consistent with this finding is evidence of reallocation effects in
the pre-WTO period with the least efficient non-import firms
exiting or beginning to import intermediates.

Once trade is fully liberalized this source of productivity growth for
importing firms disappears along with reallocation effects through
this channel.

This is suggestive of lower quality imports or the dumping of
inferior intermediates in the post-WTO period leading to fewer
opportunities for technology transfers.

Further investigation into whether what you import matters
Thank you
Questions and comments most welcome
APPENDIX
Sectoral composition in Vietnam
Share of Employment
Manufacturing
2002
51.06
HT
Manufacturing
14.74
Services
Agriculture
39.27
9.67
2003
53.20
15.31
38.42
8.37
2004
53.83
15.63
38.55
7.62
2005
53.10
15.49
39.62
7.28
2006
54.18
15.93
39.05
6.76
2007
54.01
16.51
39.91
6.08
2008
50.05
15.72
42.49
7.17
2009
48.83
16.20
44.44
6.72
2010
45.67
15.19
48.35
5.97
Sectoral composition in Vietnam
Share of Output
Manufacturing
2002
33.89
HT
Manufacturing
15.07
Services
Agriculture
59.51
6.60
2003
34.23
16.01
60.00
5.76
2004
37.74
17.60
55.29
6.96
2005
37.10
17.50
55.55
7.35
2006
37.75
17.82
55.72
6.52
2007
38.73
19.03
56.82
4.45
2008
36.08
18.05
60.68
3.24
2009
40.14
20.33
56.75
3.10
2010
37.29
19.47
59.90
2.81
Sectoral exposure to trade: Direct
Share of Exports
Share of Imports
Man
Man HT
Ag
Man
Man HT
Ag
2002
73.45
18.29
26.55
93.85
70.29
6.15
2003
49.87
17.43
50.12
89.70
71.34
10.29
2004
34.99
13.83
65.01
83.90
69.71
16.08
2005
46.97
17.27
53.03
84.19
63.05
15.78
2006
35.58
12.53
64.42
86.11
70.96
13.78
2007
31.38
12.87
68.62
82.92
70.38
16.90
2008
36.18
13.15
63.81
77.55
63.18
22.27
2009
32.36
13.98
67.62
71.39
58.33
28.31
2010
33.23
14.85
66.69
70.12
58.26
29.55
Trade in Vietnam – Sectoral Composition
500000000
450000000
400000000
350000000
300000000
250000000
200000000
150000000
100000000
50000000
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Exports
Imports
Man Exports
Man Imports
Source: Author’s calculations based on COMTRADE database.
Notes: Deflated to 2000 values using 4-digit sector level GDP deflator
Sectoral exposure to trade: Indirect
Manufacturing
Services
700000000
160000000
600000000
140000000
500000000
120000000
100000000
400000000
80000000
300000000
60000000
200000000
40000000
100000000
20000000
0
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Exports from upstream
Imports into upstream
Exports from upstream
Imports into upstream
Exports from downstream
Imports into downstream
Exports from downstream
Imports into downstream
Agriculture
160000000
140000000
120000000
100000000
80000000
60000000
40000000
20000000
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Exports from upstream
Imports into upstream
Exports from downstream
Imports into downstream
Sectoral composition in Vietnam
Share of Employment
Manufacturing
2001
49.69
HT
Manufacturing
14.62
Services
Agriculture
39.41
10.89
2002
51.06
14.74
39.27
9.67
2003
53.20
15.31
38.42
8.37
2004
53.83
15.63
38.55
7.62
2005
53.10
15.49
39.62
7.28
2006
54.18
15.93
39.05
6.76
2007
54.01
16.51
39.91
6.08
2008
50.05
15.72
42.49
7.17
2009
48.83
16.20
44.44
6.72
2010
45.67
15.19
48.35
5.97
Sectoral composition in Vietnam
Share of Capital
Manufacturing
2001
33.06
HT
Manufacturing
16.81
Services
Agriculture
56.54
10.39
2002
37.87
18.89
51.46
10.66
2003
37.83
19.38
52.92
9.24
2004
36.54
18.59
54.56
8.90
2005
35.64
18.63
56.57
7.79
2006
33.72
18.29
59.63
6.65
2007
30.00
16.15
65.47
4.52
2008
30.48
16.39
66.07
3.45
2009
29.26
17.60
67.10
3.64
2010
20.97
12.31
75.41
3.62
Sectoral composition in Vietnam
Share of Output
Manufacturing
2001
34.77
HT
Manufacturing
16.35
Services
Agriculture
57.04
8.18
2002
33.89
15.07
59.51
6.60
2003
34.23
16.01
60.00
5.76
2004
37.74
17.60
55.29
6.96
2005
37.10
17.50
55.55
7.35
2006
37.75
17.82
55.72
6.52
2007
38.73
19.03
56.82
4.45
2008
36.08
18.05
60.68
3.24
2009
40.14
20.33
56.75
3.10
2010
37.29
19.47
59.90
2.81
Sectoral exposure to trade: Direct
Share of Exports
Share of Imports
Man
Man HT
Ag
Man
Man HT
Ag
2001
42.21
15.21
57.79
84.50
65.86
15.49
2002
73.45
18.29
26.55
93.85
70.29
6.15
2003
49.87
17.43
50.12
89.70
71.34
10.29
2004
34.99
13.83
65.01
83.90
69.71
16.08
2005
46.97
17.27
53.03
84.19
63.05
15.78
2006
35.58
12.53
64.42
86.11
70.96
13.78
2007
31.38
12.87
68.62
82.92
70.38
16.90
2008
36.18
13.15
63.81
77.55
63.18
22.27
2009
32.36
13.98
67.62
71.39
58.33
28.31
2010
33.23
14.85
66.69
70.12
58.26
29.55