The Structure - Conduct - Performance paradigm revisited: an empirical analysis for Vietnamese firms
Main Article Content
Abstract
The Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) paradigm became the dominant framework for empirical work in Industrial Organization starting from the early 1950s.1 There have been a large number of empirical researches in the literature examining the SCP hypothesis for various countries in the world. Nevertheless, empirical works in this literature for Vietnamese firms are still scared. This paper shows that, in general, the SCP paradigm fits Vietnamese firm data well. Concentration level (C in SCP) of the industry and barriers to entry (S in SCP) are key factors affecting firm performance (P in SCP). We find evidence that higher concentration ratio yields higher performane of firms. This finding provides important empirical evidence on Vietnam’s restructuring process, especially the stated-own enterprises. Vietnam has many economic groups that definitely posses high market power, hence enjoy higher returns. If some of these groups are not efficiently performing, this paper suggests that the government should “dillute” their industry by easing up the entry process hence to increase competitiveness of the industry. The ease of accessing different provinces in Vietnam – a special type of barriers to entry – proves to generate higher performance of firms. This finding is meaningful for provincial authorities in designing policy to promote investment in their localities. Keywords: debt crisis, policy implications
Article Details
Keywords
Industrial Organization, Structure – Conduct – Performance, Concentration Ratio, Barrier to Entry, Economic Groups
References
2. Bain, J. (1951). Relation of Profit Rate to Concentration: American Manufacturing,1936-1940. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65(3), 293–324.
3. Bain, J. (1954). Economies of Scale, Concentration, and the Condition of Entry in Twenty Manufacturing Industries. American Economic Review, 44(1), 15–39.
4. Bain, J. (1956). Barriers to New Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
5. Barthwal R. R., (2000), Industrial Economics: An introductory Text Book, Paperback.
6. Baumol W.J., (1982), Contestable markets and the theory of industrial structure, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
7. Bresnahan, T. (1989). Empirical Studies of Industries with Market Power. In R.
8. Schmalensee and R. Willig, editors, Handbook of Industrial Organization,Amsterdam.
North-Holland.
9. Bresnahan, T. and Schmalensee, R. (1987). The Empirical Renaissance in IndustrialEconomics: An Overview. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 371–378.
10. Brozen, Y. (1971). Concentration and Structural and Marker Disequilibria. Antitrust Bulletin, 16, 244–248.
11. Cabral, L. and Mata, J. (2003). On the Evolution of the Firm Size Distribution: Facts and Theory. American Economic Review, 93(4), 1075–1090.
12. Caves, R. (1998). Industrial Organization and New Findings on the Turnover and Mobility of Firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(4), 1947–1982.
13. Chandler, L.V. (1938), Monopolistic element in commercial banking, Journal of Political Economy Vol.46, No.1, pp.1-22.
14. Church, J. and Ware, R. (2000). Industrial Organization : A Strategic Approach. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston.
15. Collins, N. and Preston, L. (1969). Price-Cost Margins and Industry Structure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 51(3), 271–286.
16. Comanor, W. and Wilson, T. (1967). Advertising Market Structure and Performance.
Review of Economics and Statistics, 49(4), 423–440.
17. Cyert, R. and March, J. (1963). A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, New York.
18. Dang-Nguyen, GODEFROY, (1995), Économie industrielle appliquée. Librairie Vuibert.
19. Demsetz, H. (1974). Two Systems of Belief About Monopoly. In H. H.J.Goldschmid and
J.F.Weston, editors, Industrial Concentration: The New Learning, Boston. Little Brown.
20. Kenneth Desmond George, C. JOLL, E.L. LYNK, (1992), Industrial Organisation:
competition, growth and structural change. Routledge.
21. Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, Exit, Growth and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle.
American Economic Review, 86(3), 562-583.
22. Lipczynski, J., Wilson, J., and Goddard, J. (2005). Industrial Organization: Competition, Strategy, Policy. FT Prentice Hall, London, second edition.
23. Martin, S. (2002). Advanced Industrial Economics, Second Edition. Blackwell, Oxford.
24. Mason, E. (1939). Price and Production Policies of Large-Scale Enterprise. American Economic Review, 29(1), 61–74.
25. Mason E.S., (1949), The current state of the monopoly problem in the United States, Havard Law Review, Vol. 62, pp.1265-85.
26. Panagiotou G. (2006), The impact of managerial cognition on the structure-conductperformance-paradigm (S-C-P) - A strategic group perspective, Management Decision, Vol.44, No. 3, pp. 423-441.
27. Paul R. FergusonandG. J. Ferguson, (1994), Industrial Economics – Issues and Perspectives, New-York University Press.
28. Scherer, F. and Ross, D. (1990). Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance.
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, third edition.
29. Schmalensee, R. (1989). Inter-Industry Studies of Structure and Performance. In R. Schmalensee and R. Willig, editors, Handbook of Industrial Organization, Amsterdam. NorthHolland.
30. Shepherd, W. (1972). The Elements of Market Structure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 54(1), 25–37.
31. Simon, H. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.
32. Stigler G.J., (1983), The organisation of industry, University of Chicago Press.
33. Tirole J. (1988), The Theory of Industrial Organisation, MIT Press.
34. Tybout, J. (2000). Manufacturing firms in developing countries: How well do they do and why? Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 11–44.
35. Weiss, L. (1991). The concentration-profits relationship and antitrust. In D. Audretsch and H. Yamawaki, editors, Structure, Conduct and Performance , New York. New York University Press.