PHÂN TÍCH CÁC Y U T NG KINH T C A KHU V C D CH V T I THÀNH PH H CHÍ MINH ANALYZING DETERMINANTS WHICH AFFECT TO THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF SERVICE SECTOR IN HOCHIMINH CITY VÕ HI U T N QUANG CÁN B GIAO C H KHOA: QU TĨM T hích h H U TE khu v PHÂN TÍCH CÁC Y HV o s -2009, ngành bao g thông tin liên l ABSTRACT Anlyzing the impact of these important determinants such as capital, labor and TFP to the total domestic production (GDP) of service sector in HCMC in this period 2000-2010 is main purpose of this theisis So the title of this thesis will be:”ANALYZING DETERMINANTS WHICH AFFECT TO THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF SERVICE SECTOR IN HOCHIMINH CITY” The author use data which are extracted from GSO of HCMC in period 2000-2010 including total production, capital and labor of subsectors in this area; these are sub-sectors which have highest rate in service sector: trade and maintenance, hotels and restaurants, transportation-storage- communication, real estate- renting and business activities, education and training, health and social work GI Thành ph c v khu v V kinh t nhìn th C H hi N nv H U TE ung c - -2010; phân tích y - 2020 mt -2009, ngành bao g kho bãi thông tin liên l xây d gi mơ hình s v -2009 d -Douglas d tr -2010 d kho bãi, Mơ hình nghiên c u áp d ng s mơ hình Cobb-Douglas d ng ng Y it = A i V it L it euit : (4) Hay LnY it = LnA i it + it u it (5) e=2, 71828 ng Y it - bi n ph thu c- A: thông s V ng cá y u t it - S bi ng v n c a ngành (i) c l p- t h s co dãn c a s òn g i ph ình (5) K 3.1K VÀ TH Các ngành YTCT, GDDT chi d VTKB, KDTS l YTCT GDDT ng s H U TE TPHCM u it : ph Giáo trình Kinh t a ngành (i) t t ng h p (TFP) c l p- ng L it - bi ng s C H T ng s iv iv ng c a ngành (i) ng c a KVDV TPHCM ng cho nh ng y u t n -2009 TNSC KSNH VTKB KDTS GDDT YTCT 104,329 87,045 50,038 40,868 24,798 25,542 Hình 3.20: T C H -2009 : ngàn t ub H U TE Ngu Hình 3.24: H - 2009 Ngu Ngu M H U TE 3.2 K C H Hình 3.27: N v (Y_TNSC) = 49,84 x (V_TNSC) 0,29936x (L_TNSC) 0,16144 (Y_KSNH) = 43,75 x (V_TNSC) 0,29936x (L_TNSC) 0,16144 (Y_VTKB) = 57,57 x (V_TNSC) 0,29936x (L_TNSC) 0,16144 (Y_KDTS) =35,27 x (V_TNSC) 0,29936x (L_TNSC) 0,16144 (Y_GDDT) = 80,82 x (V_TNSC) 0,29936x (L_TNSC) 0,16144 (Y_YTCT) = 82,47 x (V_TNSC) 0,29936x (L_TNSC) 0,16144 V v 3.3 Th K dãn c 16144, h v ngành khác K KVDV không nhi cho th 2001-2009 Tuy nhiên k y khác 3.4 Gi T t nên tác gi C H c 3.4.1 Gi : Gi Ki s d ng v n nh H U TE ngành KDTS, TNSC, KSNH nh ng tiêu chí c th s s d ng v u s d ng, th c t s d ng, m tác ng c a y u t khác c Nâng cao trình qu n lý v u qu kinh t cao thay ng b vào nhi u ngành lúc Ch ng ngu n v n s d ng c c a ngành, ch ng ngu n v n có th u t quan tr ng có tính quy a vào kh ng, v i v ng ãi su t vay, th i h n cho vay… Chính sách kinh t khác h tr doanh nghi p thu hút thêm nhi u ngu n v c ti p t h tr nh c (FDI) vào khu v c d ch v n gi m thu th i gian nh nh, h t ng phát tri n, h tr v sách liên quan xu t kh u d ch v … Gi i pháp v ng Nâng cao ch ình giáo d c nâng cao k qu n lý ngu n nhân l c th t s c n thi t n u mu T p trung vào vi c khai thác hi u qu bi c bi t ãi ng nhân tài nh m thu hút nh c hành ng kinh t c, tránh tình tr ng lãng phí ngu n nhân l ng có trình tay ngh c Xây d ình o tay ngh ng v i nhi u c ng n khích nghiên c u khoa h c, s d ng công ngh tiên ti n l c v n t i, thông tin liên l c Gi i pháp khác ny ut c th c hi n b ng vi nh ng y u t khác ngồi v cơng ngh hay ng Th c hi n chuy n d khu v c c n trình u kinh t , sách kinh t c ti p hay gián ti i h i nh p kinh t th gi i ng c a khu v c 3.4.2 Gi i pháp ngành D a vào k t qu ng t ng ngành, tác gi cách m r ng ngu n v n c c xu t vi ic -2010 c qua cho th khu v Do h p ph m vi h cao nh su sách kinh t -xã h nh ng c a nh ng ngành mà v ng hi u qu H U TE T nh ng c hi u qu d K ng C H cho t ng ngành riêng bi t nh m trì hay thúc xu t m t s gi i pháp -Douglas ng t t b ng ng th i tác gi ng TÀI LI Tr T M Kinh t Tr H Chuy nh t B k ho ình phát tri n Liên H p Qu Vi t Nam: Chìa khóa cho t ng b n v ng Niên giám th Thành ph Mutrap, Báo cáo chi c phát tri n t ng th khu v c d ch v Vi t Nam t m nhìn D án h tr C H t Phát tri n khu v c D ch v Dana HÁJKOVÁ, Jaromír HURNÍK Czech National Bank “Cobb-Douglas production function: a key of convergening economy” Czech Journal of Economics and Finance 57 2007 no 9-10 Dimitrious Asteriou and Stephen G Hall, “Applied Econometrics A modern Approach using Eviews and Microfit” Revised Edition, 2007 Published by PALGRAVE Mac Millan H U TE Ian Fraser, “The Cobb Douglas Production function: An Antipodean deference?” Economic Issues Vol Part March 2002 M.A Katouzian “The Development of the Service Sector: A new Approach” Ocford Economic Papers new series Vol 22 No (Nov 1970) pp 362-382 H U TE PHÂN TÍCH CÁC Y HI D C H LU CBHD: PGS TS HÀ NAM KHÁNH GIAO HVTH: VÕ HI 10/4/2012 N K C H Th qu kinh t & KVDV H U TE Hi 10/4/2012 100 12 Tr ,M Thành ph Trung tâm kinh t 13 Tr ,M T th Vi , 2010 Tài li 14 Allan P Layton and Geoffrey H Moore, “Leading Indicators for the Service Sector” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics Vol No (Jul 1989) pp 379-386 15 Anatoliy G Goncharuk, “Economic efficiency in transition: the case of C H Ukraine” Managing Global Transition 4(2) 129-143 16 Dana HÁJKOVÁ, Jaromír HURNÍK Czech National Bank “Cobb-Douglas production function: a key of convergening economy” Czech Journal of Economics and Finance 57 2007 no 9-10 H U TE 17 Dimitrious Asteriou and Stephen G Hall, “Applied Econometrics A modern Approach using Eviews and Microfit” Revised Edition, 2007 Published by PALGRAVE Mac Millan 18 Donghoon Lee and Keneth I Wolpin, “Intersectoral Labor Mobility and the Growth of the Service Sector” Econometrica Vol 74 No.1 (Jan 2006) pp 1-46 19 Economic survey series-the service sector Reference year 2009 Department of Statistics Singapore 20 Gaetano Antinolfi, Todd Keister, “Growth Dynamic and return to scales: Bifurcaton Analysis” Journal of Economic Theory 96 70-96 (2001) 21 Ian Fraser, “The Cobb Douglas Production function: An Antipodean deference?” Economic Issues Vol Part March 2002 22 Jette Steen Knudsen “Germany’s Service Sector Reforms: Lessons for Policy Makers” Journal of Public Policy Vol 22 No (Jan.-Apr 2002) pp 77-100 23 M.A Katouzian “The Development of the Service Sector: A new Approach” Ocford Economic Papers new series Vol 22 No (Nov 1970) pp 362-382 101 24 Ronald C Griffin, “On the meaning of economic efficiency in Policy Analysis” Land Economics Feb 1995 7191): 1-15 25 Susanto Basu John G Fernald, “Return to scale in US production: Estimation and Implications” The Journal of Political Economy Vol 105 No (Apr 1997) 249-283 26 Thomas J Kirn, “The Change in the Service Sector of the U.S: A Spatial Persective” Annals of the Association of American Geographers Vol 77 No 3(Sept 1987) pp 353-372 27 T http://www.singstat.gov.sg/ 29 T Thái Lan http://web.nso.go.th/en/survey/bts/bts08_who.pdf C Trung Qu C H 28 T http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2010/indexeh.htm 30 Wautabouna Ouahara “Economic efficiency analysis in Côte d’lvoire” Journal H U TE of Development and Agricultural Economics Vol 2(9) pp 316-325 Sept 2010 31 Wilfred J Ethier “National and International return to scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade” The America Economic Review Vol 72 No.3 (Jun 1982) 389-405 32 World Bank http://data.worldbank.org/ 33 http://cudaaphug.wikispaces.com/ 34 http://cyro.cs-territories.com/asa2_economics/ 35 http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/courses/econ2020 36 http://fabnomics.com/solows-growth-model-an-increase-in-savings/ 102 B B T Thành ph HCM giá so sánh 1994, giai 2001-2009, t T VTKB 5.318 5.998 6.489 7.836 9.042 10.300 12.078 14.416 15.568 87.045 KDTS 4.846 2.891 2.963 5.769 6.192 6.739 6.467 6.999 7.172 50.038 GDDT 1.834 2.123 YTCT 1.425 1.641 2.854 3.028 3.276 3.550 3.881 4.252 24.798 2.579 3.078 3.601 3.986 4.389 4.843 25.542 2,14 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TT TSP KSNH 3.546 3.698 3.802 4.049 4.504 4.999 5.342 5.437 5.491 40.868 1,55 2,93 1,48 2,32 3,40 C H TNSC 7.849 8.398 9.205 9.826 10.939 12.416 13.650 15.224 16.822 104.329 - 2001 B H U TE Ngu n: Niên giám TK TPHCM 1999, 2003, 2006, 2010 tính tốn c a tác gi T , giai 2001-2009, t TNSC KSNH VTKB KDTS GDDT YTCT 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 38.656,9 49.727,6 61.173,3 70.028,5 86.178,9 117.504,1 171.419,0 251.400,0 417.334,8 11.082,8 9.809,2 10.937,7 11.604,9 17.404,7 19.074,3 27.425,0 41.309,5 60.785,7 15.559,4 18.161,7 20.191,9 35.940,4 39.630,7 47.009,0 70.846,2 202.104,8 128.415,9 21.158,2 23.903,3 26.149,0 33.288,0 51.997,1 53.176,0 101.345,5 166.155,3 254.660,4 1.042,8 791 1.175 1.091 1.713 1.536 3.627 4.151 5.868 616,6 1.248 1.112 1.273 1.604,4 3.514 2.568,3 2.767,3 3.680,3 2009/2001 ICOR 20012009 10,80 5,48 8,25 12,04 5,63 5,97 42,20 25,55 11,01 100,39 2,00 0,90 T Ngu n: Niên giám TK TPHCM1999, 2003, 2006, 2010 tính tốn c a tác gi 103 B ng làm vi c doanh nghi p KVDV S 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TNSC 104.945 122.416 138.617 151.465 178.032 KSNH 22.543 27.078 28.465 28.516 32.916 VTKB 72.538 69.023 73.890 87.686 100.331 2006 202.209 33.651 112.229 99.873 6.756 4.226 2007 2008 2009 228.432 287.027 329.216 3,14 74,79 51,10 0,68 40.329 41.063 51.770 2,30 157,30 106,07 0,67 116.190 118.093 145.863 2,01 73,31 106,73 1,46 T C H (tri (tri KDTS GDDT 24.869 850 34.294 1.381 41.665 1.597 53.951 1.882 76.825 3.593 YTCT 1.152 2.245 2.402 2.954 4.066 129.834 9.112 4.975 168.785 11.931 5.314 219.420 14.598 7.954 8,82 17,17 6,90 194,86 2,157 1,236 32,69 291,27 608,88 0,17 0,13 0,49 Ngu n: Niên giám TK TPHCM1999, 2003, 2006, 2010 tính tốn c a tác gi 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 H U TE B TSP 7.849 8.398 9.205 9.826 10.939 12.416 13.650 15.224 16.822 V 38.656,9 49.727,6 61.173,3 70.028,5 86.178,9 117.504,1 171.419,0 251.400,0 417.334,8 104.945 122.416 138.617 151.465 178.032 202.209 228.432 287.027 329.216 TTTSP TT V 7,0% 28,6% 9,6% 23,0% 6,7% 14,5% 11,3% 23,1% 13,5% 36,3% 9,9% 45,9% 11,5% 46,7% 10,5% 66,0% ICOR - 16,6% 20,17 13,2% 14,18 9,3% 14,26 17,5% 14,51 13,6% 21,21 13,0% 43,69 25,7% 50,81 14,7% 103,84 74,79 68,60 66,41 64,87 61,44 61,40 59,76 53,04 51,10 Ngu n: Niên giám TK TPHCM 1999, 2003, 2006, 2010 tính toán c a tác gi 104 B 2001 TSP 3.546 V 11.082,8 2002 3.698 2003 3.802 10.937,7 2004 4.049 2005 TT TSP TT V 22.543 - 157,30 4,3% -11,5% 20,1% (8,4) 136,57 28.465 2,8% 11,5% 5,1% 10,9 133,57 11.604,9 28.516 6,5% 6,1% 0,2% 2,7 141,99 4.504 17.404,7 32.916 11,2% 50,0% 15,4% 12,7 136,83 2006 4.999 19.074,3 33.651 11,0% 9,6% 2,2% 3,4 148,55 2007 5.342 27.425,0 40.329 6,9% 43,8% 19,8% 24,3 132,46 2008 5.437 41.309,5 41.063 1,8% 50,6% 1,8% 146,2 132,41 2009 5.491 60.785,7 51.770 1,0% 47,1% 26,1% 360,7 106,07 C H 9.809,2 27.078 - ICOR - H U TE Ngu n: Niên giám TK TPHCM 1999, 2003, 2006, 2010 tính tốn c a tác gi B 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TSP 5.318 5.998 6.489 7.836 9.042 10.300 12.078 14.416 15.568 V 15.559 18.162 20.192 35.940 39.631 47.009 70.846 202.105 128.416 72.538 69.023 73.890 87.686 100.331 112.229 116.190 118.093 145.863 TT V TT TSP - 12,8% 16,7% 8,2% 11,2% 20,8% 78,0% 15,4% 10,3% 13,9% 18,6% 17,3% 50,7% 19,4% 185,3% 8,0% -36,5% -4,8% 7,1% 18,7% 14,4% 11,9% 3,5% 1,6% 23,5% ICOR 3,8 4,1 11,7 3,1 5,9 13,4 56,1 (64,0) 73,31 86,90 87,82 89,36 90,12 91,78 103,95 122,07 106,73 Ngu n: Niên giám TK TPHCM1999, 2003, 2006, 2010 tính tốn c a tác gi 105 B ng 3.7: S li u ngành Kinh doanh tài s n TT V TT TSP V 21.158,2 24.869 - 23.903,3 34.294 -40,3% 13,0% 26.149,0 41.665 2,5% 9,4% 33.288,0 53.951 94,7% 27,3% 51.997,1 76.825 7,3% 56,2% 53.176,0 99.872 8,8% 2,3% 101.345,5 129.834 -4,0% 90,6% 166.155,3 168.784 8,2% 63,9% 254.660,4 219.419 2,5% 53,3% TSP 4.846 2.891 2.963 5.769 6.192 6.739 6.467 6.999 7.172 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 37,9% 21,5% 29,5% 42,4% 30,0% 30,0% 30,0% 30,0% ICOR 194,86 (1,4) 84,30 31,2 71,11 2,5 106,93 44,2 80,60 2,2 67,48 (177,1) 49,81 121,8 41,47 511,6 32,69 Ngu n: Niên giám TK TPHCM1999, 2003, 2006, 2010 tính tốn c a tác gi , 2007, 2008, 2009 c a ngành KDTS C H Ghi chú: s ng theo t l c -1) x1,3 v i 1,3 t l H U TE ng bình quân t -2005 B 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TSP 1.834 2.123 2.854 3.028 3.276 3.550 3.881 4.252 V 1.042,8 791,0 1.175,0 1.091,0 1.713,0 1.536,0 3.627,0 4.151,0 5.868,0 TT TT TSP V 850 - 1.381 15,8% -24,1% 1.597 -100,0% 48,5% 1.882 -7,1% 3.593 6,1% 57,0% 6.756 8,2% -10,3% 9.112 8,4% 136,1% 11.931 9,3% 14,4% 14.598 9,6% 41,4% 62,5% 15,6% 17,8% 90,9% 88,0% 34,9% 30,9% 22,4% ICOR (0,9) (0,2) (0,0) 3,6 (0,7) 7,6 1,6 4,6 2,158 1,537 1,516 843 485 390 325 291 Ngu n: Niên giám TK TPHCM1999, 2003, 2006, 2010 tính toán c a tác gi 106 B 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TSP 1.425 1.641 2.579 3.078 3.601 3.986 4.389 4.843 V TT TSP TT V 1.152 2.245 15,2% 102,4% 2.402 -100,0% -10,9% 2.954 14,5% 4.066 19,3% 26,0% 4.226 17,0% 119,0% 4.975 10,7% -26,9% 5.314 10,1% 7,7% 7.954 10,3% 33,0% 616,6 1.248,0 1.112,0 1.273,0 1.604,4 3.514,0 2.568,3 2.767,3 3.680,3 94,9% 7,0% 23,0% 37,6% 3,9% 17,7% 6,8% 49,7% ICOR 2,9 0,1 0,1 0,7 3,7 (2,5) 0,5 2,0 1,237 731 873 757 852 801 826 609 C H Ngu n: Niên giám TK TPHCM1999, 2003, 2006, 2010 tính tốn c a tác gi B ng 3.10: Th ng kê mô t Sample: 2001 2010 Common sample (V_?) (L_?) 6359.229 3241.071 67898.46 4922.500 1335.650 37311.50 Maximum 16822.00 20559.90 329216.0 Minimum 1425.000 325.6000 850.0000 Std Dev 4062.867 4546.830 77328.05 Skewness 1.073029 2.589220 1.567826 Kurtosis 3.110499 9.283856 5.176336 Jarque-Bera 9.235546 132.6062 29.13750 Probability 0.009875 0.000000 0.000000 Sum 305243.0 155571.4 3259126 Sum Sq Dev 7.76E+08 9.72E+08 2.81E+11 Observations 48 48 48 Cross sections 6 Mean Median Ngu H U TE (Y_?) 107 B 1: K PURE POOLED MODEL FIXED EFFECT MODELS Mơ hình Mơ hình 0.1881 ** 0.2994 0.1534*** 0.1614** 4.3518 (0.0667) (0.2545) 0.0484 (0.4563) 4.3310 (0.0656) (0.2528) 0.0441 (0.4499) 4.0404 (0.1290) (0.2619) 0.0127 (0.4773) 0.2869 0.3052 0.2845 0.3053 0.3518 0.3720 48 94% 48 97% 48 98% 48 94% 1.18 0.82 0.81 1.18 C H C-GDDT C-YTGD Observations Adjusted R2 Durbin-Watson statistical Ngu Mơ hình 0.2994 0.1614 4.0404 (0.1290) (0.2619) 0.0127 (0.4773) 5.1917 C C-TNSC C-KSNH C-VTKB C-KDTS Mơ hình 0.2453 0.1838 0.3518 0.3720 LOG(V_?) LOG(L_?) Mơ hình 0.2711 0.1575 H U TE 48 82% 0.33 B 2: Ki (mơ hình 5) Wald Test: Pool: POOL01 Test Statistic Value df Probability F-statistic 308.3284 (1 40) 0.0000 Chi-square 308.3284 0.0000 Value Std Err Null Hypothesis Summary: Normalized Restriction (= 0) -1 + C(1) + C(2) -0.539197 0.030707 108 Restrictions are linear in coefficients Ngu B 3: Ki (mơ hình 5) Redundant Fixed Effects Tests Pool: POOL01 Test cross-section fixed effects Statistic d.f Prob Cross-section F 16.683306 (5.40) 0.0000 Cross-section Chi-square 54.080909 0.0000 Cross-section fixed effects test equation: Dependent Variable: LOG(Y_?) Method: Panel Least Squares Date: 06/12/12 Time: 13:55 H U TE Sample (adjusted): 2001 2009 C H Effects Test Included observations: after adjustments Cross-sections included: Total pool (unbalanced) observations: 48 White cross-section standard errors & covariance (d.f corrected) Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob LOG(L_?) 0.153417 0.039715 3.862996 0.0004 LOG(V_?) 0.188123 0.039685 4.740388 0.0000 C 5.191715 0.138525 37.47842 0.0000 R-squared 0.829849 Mean dependent var 8.570346 Adjusted R-squared 0.822287 S.D dependent var 0.619812 S.E of regression 0.261288 Akaike info criterion 0.214074 Sum squared resid 3.072212 Schwarz criterion 0.331024 Hannan-Quinn criter 0.258270 Durbin-Watson stat 0.329465 Log likelihood -2.137776 F-statistic 109.7358 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000 Ngu 109 B ng 3.14: T ng h p k t qu nghiên c u H s s Ngành ng Hi u qu d ng v n (tri ng ng/lao ICOR ng) TNSC 8,9 42,20 51,100 KSNH 5,1 25,55 106,07 VTKB 12,8 11,01 106,73 KDTS 8,9 100,39 32,69 GDDT 8,2 2,00 291,27 H U TE YTCT 11,8 0,90 608,88 ng theo mơ hình Y=AK L A=49, ,29936; ,16144 A=43,57; ,29936; ,16144 A=57,57; ,29936; ,16144 C H TSP % K t qu A=35,27; ,29936; ,16144 A=80,82; ,29936; ,16144 A=82,47; ,29936; ,16144 X p h ng hi u qu kinh t Ngu n: Tác gi tính tốn t ng h p B 5: Regression Dependent Variable: LOG(Y_?) Method: Pooled Least Squares Date: 06/10/12 Time: 18:02 Sample (adjusted): 2001 2009 Included observations: after adjustments Cross-sections included: Total pool (unbalanced) observations: 48 LOG(L_?) 0.153417 0.092406 1.660260 0.1038 LOG(V_?) 0.188123 0.087438 2.151499 0.0368 110 C 5.191715 0.255347 20.33197 0.0000 Adjusted R-squared 0.822287 S.D dependent var 0.619812 S.E of regression 0.261288 Akaike info criterion 0.214074 Sum squared resid 3.072212 Schwarz criterion 0.331024 Hannan-Quinn criter 0.258270 Durbin-Watson stat 0.329465 Log likelihood -2.137776 F-statistic 109.7358 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000 Ngu Dependent Variable: LOG(Y_?) Method: Pooled Least Squares Date: 06/10/12 Time: 18:02 Sample (adjusted): 2001 2009 6: Regression C H B H U TE Included observations: after adjustments Cross-sections included: Total pool (unbalanced) observations: 48 Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob LOG(L_?) 0.161441 0.069653 2.317808 0.0257 LOG(V_?) 0.299361 0.054949 5.447984 0.0000 C 4.040413 0.442907 9.122480 0.0000 Fixed Effects (Cross) TNSC C -0.129010 KSNH C -0.261890 VTKB C 0.012659 KDTS C -0.477310 GDDT C 0.351833 YTCT C 0.372007 Effects Specification 111 Cross-section fixed (dummy variables) R-squared 0.944853 Mean dependent var 8.570346 Adjusted R-squared 0.935203 S.D dependent var 0.619812 S.E of regression 0.157775 Akaike info criterion -0.704278 Sum squared resid 0.995722 Schwarz criterion -0.392411 Log likelihood 24.90268 Hannan-Quinn criter -0.586423 F-statistic 97.90526 Durbin-Watson stat Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000 1.179856 Ngu Dependent Variable: LOG(Y_?) 3.17: Regression C H B Method: Pooled EGLS (Cross-section weights) Date: 06/10/12 Time: 18:03 Sample (adjusted): 2001 2009 H U TE Included observations: after adjustments Cross-sections included: Total pool (unbalanced) observations: 48 Linear estimation after one-step weighting matrix Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob LOG(L_?) 0.157543 0.062920 2.503846 0.0165 LOG(V_?) 0.271121 0.035055 7.734243 0.0000 C 4.351754 0.384698 11.31212 0.0000 Fixed Effects (Cross) TNSC C -0.066749 KSNH C -0.254503 VTKB C 0.048414 KDTS C -0.456263 GDDT C 0.286894 YTCT C 0.305213 Effects Specification Cross-section fixed (dummy variables) 112 Weighted Statistics R-squared 0.978368 Mean dependent var 13.54645 Adjusted R-squared 0.974582 S.D dependent var 9.008119 S.E of regression 0.151817 Sum squared resid 0.921937 F-statistic 258.4440 Durbin-Watson stat 0.818915 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000 Unweighted Statistics Ngu Dependent Variable: LOG(Y_?) 8: Regression C H B Method: Pooled EGLS (Cross-section weights) Date: 06/10/12 Time: 18:04 H U TE Sample (adjusted): 2001 2009 Included observations: after adjustments Cross-sections included: Total pool (unbalanced) observations: 48 Iterate weights to convergence Cross-section weights (PCSE) standard errors & covariance (d.f corrected) Convergence achieved after 13 weight iterations Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob LOG(L_?) 0.183820 0.059964 3.065521 0.0039 LOG(V_?) 0.245295 0.032574 7.530394 0.0000 C 4.330976 0.351804 12.31077 0.0000 Fixed Effects (Cross) TNSC C -0.065621 KSNH C -0.252792 VTKB C 0.044065 KDTS C -0.449925 113 GDDT C 0.284511 YTCT C 0.305333 Cross-section fixed (dummy variables) Weighted Statistics Adjusted R-squared 0.981576 S.D dependent var 14.59345 S.E of regression 0.160708 Akaike info criterion 3.192733 Sum squared resid 1.033088 Schwarz criterion 3.504600 Hannan-Quinn criter 3.310588 Durbin-Watson stat 0.812827 Log likelihood -68.62559 358.7096 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000 R-squared 0.942784 Mean dependent var 8.570346 Sum squared resid 1.033087 Durbin-Watson stat 1.052264 H U TE Ngu C H F-statistic B 9: Regression Dependent Variable: LOG(Y_?) Method: Pooled Least Squares Date: 06/12/12 Time: 13:40 Sample (adjusted): 2001 2009 Included observations: after adjustments Cross-sections included: Total pool (unbalanced) observations: 48 White cross-section standard errors & covariance (d.f corrected) Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob LOG(L_?) 0.161441 0.027380 5.896270 0.0000 LOG(V_?) 0.299361 0.029572 10.12301 0.0000 C 4.040413 0.313029 12.90749 0.0000 Fixed Effects (Cross) TNSC C -0.129010 114 KSNH C -0.261890 VTKB C 0.012659 KDTS C -0.477310 GDDT C 0.351833 YTCT C 0.372007 Effects Specification R-squared 0.944853 Mean dependent var 8.570346 Adjusted R-squared 0.935203 S.D dependent var 0.619812 S.E of regression 0.157775 Akaike info criterion -0.704278 Sum squared resid 0.995722 Schwarz criterion -0.392411 Log likelihood 24.90268 Hannan-Quinn criter -0.586423 F-statistic 97.90526 C H Cross-section fixed (dummy variables) H U TE Prob(F-statistic) Ngu Durbin-Watson stat 0.000000 1.179856 ... H U TE PHÂN TÍCH CÁC Y C H VÕ HI KINH T D LU Chuyên ngành: QU Mã s 60 34 05 Thành ph H tháng B TP HCM PHÂN TÍCH CÁC Y C H VÕ HI D H U TE KINH T LU Chuyên ngành: QU Mã s 60 34 05 KHOA H Thành ph... H U TE VÕ HI i TÓM T T LU N Thành ph H tr bi Vi th Thành ph hi tâm v l M nh Thành ph HCM t C H hi có liên quan pháp thích h PHÂN TÍCH CÁC Y H U TE KINH T MINH? ?? PH d Thành ph nghi -2009, ngành... Khoa qu Khoa qu Thành ph C HCM -T -H PHÒNG QLKH – Thành ph HCM, ngày 15 tháng 12 NHI H VÕ HI Gi 03/01/1972 : Nam Ti Chuyên ngành: Qu n Tr MSHV: 1084011024 I- Phân tích y kinh t C H Thành ph HCM