Improving the quality of foreign direct investment approaching sustainable development: A case study of hung yen province

Nội dung text: Improving the quality of foreign direct investment approaching sustainable development: A case study of hung yen province

1. IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT APPROACHING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY OF HUNG YEN PROVINCE Ph.D Bui Huy Cuong1 Abstract: After more than 30 years (1998–2018), Vietnam has achieved many positive results of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI). However, the quality of FDI inflows has not met the requirements of the country's development. Based on the research perspective, the quality of FDI inflows as an internal attribute of capital flows, thereby determining the implications of capital flow quality and the set of evaluation criteria based on the perspective of the locality where the capital flows are received. By analysing in detail the current situation of capital flow quality according to two contents, which are the structure of capital flows and the impact of FDI on the socio – economic – technical development of Hung Yen province, the author discovered inadequacies related to the quality of FDI inflows into Hung Yen province. Based on that, the study gives some recommendations of an "open" orientation to attract quality FDI inflows in the coming time for localities with a sustainable development orientation for Hung Yen province. Keywords: Foreign Direct Investment; Capital Flow Quality; Sustainable Development; Hung Yen. 1. INTRODUCTION Attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) has become an objective trend in the economic development strategy of many countries and FDI is seen as one of the important factors to promote economic growth and sustainable development. All countries in the world compete to attract more foreign direct investment capital by constantly improving the national investment environment, creating the most favorable business investment environment for investors. In that context, Vietnam has joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) and signing of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) has created a strong wave of investment in Vietnam. Many countries and investors are interested in Vietnam and have invested in various sectors of the economy. After more than 30 years of receiving FDI inflows since 1998, it has made an important contribution to the socio–economic development of Vietnam. “By the end of 2018, the whole country has 22,509 valid projects with a total registered capital of nearly 293.25 billion USD. The accumulated realized capital reached more than US $ 154.54 billion (equal to nearly 53% of the total registered capital). FDI contributed to GDP continuously increased, in 1992 accounted for 2% of GDP, in 2018 it was over 17%; FDI contributes the state budget increases by 24%/year on average; The proportion of FDI exports continued to increase, accounting for 67.4% of the total export turnover in 2018; FDI has created jobs for about 2.8 million direct workers” (Ministry of Planning and Investment, 2018). FDI inflows not only have direct contributions, but also have a spillover effect on other elements of the economy, such as stimulating the attraction of domestic investment resources, increasing competitiveness, innovation and transformation of technology, improve production efficiency; developing supporting industries, creating favorable conditions and environment for domestic 1 PhD. Candidate, National Economics University. Email: bhcuong676@gmail.com. 879
2. enterprises to step by step participate in the global value chain production. However, in the context that the world economy has not yet come out of recession, it was heavily influenced by the Covid–19 pandemic, along with the strong development of the 4th industrial revolution (4.0) and the trade protectionism of the countries with the increasing trend has had a great impact on the capital flows invested in Vietnam. In the previous stage of economic development, we found ways to attract as much FDI as possible, attracting at all costs, therefore the attraction only emphasized an increase in the number of projects, on registered capital, implemented capital, investment partners without paying attention to the quality and efficiency of FDI. Moving to a new stage, continuing to find ways to attract FDI for development is still inevitable and plays a very important role in the total capital for development investment. However, attracting FDI inflows requires a new approach, suitable to economic development, important in quantity, but attention must be paid to the quality and efficiency of FDI capital. Increasing FDI attraction should be considered in terms of sustainable development, in accordance with the goals of the socio–economic strategy of the country, of each industry, territory and a specific locality. Stemming from the above–mentioned issues, it is necessary to adjust policies to attract quality of FDI inflows with the aim of improving the quality of FDI inflows, in order to promote the effective contribution of FDI to the implementing sustainable development goals. 2. THE QUALITY OF FDI INFLOWS There are many different definitions of foreign direct investment inflows. It can be understood that "FDI inflows into the locality are capital flows that foreign investors transfer money, technology into the locality, and at the same time are under the management and administration rights for the purpose of obtaining economic benefits from the locality receiving investment. FDI inflows are shown in the form of projects transferred by foreign investors to a licensed State agency” (Bui Huy Cuong, 2019). It is possible to consider FDI inflows assessed on both quantity and quality: – Quantity of FDI inflows: is the superficial manifestation of FDI inflows, showing the scale and growth rate of the FDI inflows and outputs. The scale and growth rate of local capital inflows are reflected in the increase (size and speed) of the number of projects, the number of investors, and total foreign investment in the locality; the increase in the proportion of FDI capital compared to the total investment capital of the locality in a certain period of time. The scale and growth rate of FDI inflows to localities including: the increase and growth of the workforce employed in FDI enterprises; total revenue or value added received from the FDI sector; State budget revenue is obtained from FDI enterprises. – Quality of FDI inflows: from the philosophical point of view and economics development, it is an internal attribute of capital flow, reflected in the capital flow structure, the efficiency of capital flows and the dissipation effect of it to the beneficiaries. Thus, if the quantity of FDI flows is reflected through the questions: FDI inflows to the locality increase or decrease in both input and output, then the question of FDI quality is what structure of FDI inflows into the locality, high or low efficiency and the spread of this capital flow to the beneficiaries (economy, society, the environment) more or less, good or bad. It can be understood that the quality of FDI inflows to the locality is: the internal attributes of FDI inflows reflected in the capital flow structure, the efficiency of capital flows and its impact on the socio–economic development of the locality. (Prof. Dr. Ngo Thang Loi, 2019). 880
3. 2.1. Characteristics of quality of FDI inflows Firstly, quality of FDI inflows according to the above concept are subjective to human beings, it is a dynamic concept. Quality of FDI inflows must meet the development goals of the host country well under certain conditions and circumstances. Each stage of development is different or each country has different goals. This investment is good at this point in time, but it may not be good at other times. Therefore, the quality of FDI inflows here is relatively more meaningful. Secondly, quality of FDI inflows depend on a new form of investment because new investment activities often create new production capacity. Quality of FDI inflows often have a large positive spillover. Thirdly, by principle, quality of FDI inflows does not matter wherther it comes from large or small investors, from developed or undeveloped countries, but usually big investors from developed countries, Europe and North America have higher levels of technology and management and are therefore easier to lead to more quality FDI. Fourthly, quality of FDI inflows are often large capital projects, less falling into labor–intensive projects or exploiting mineral resources. Because large capital projects are often big projects investing in manufacturing and manufacturing industries, especially high–tech industries with great added value. Investments and these industries often generate new production capacity and have a strong spillover effect on the entire economy. 2.2. Factors constituting the quality of FDI inflows Firstly, the structure of FDI inflows, include: Structure of FDI inflows from investor perspective: is the ratio of large investors compared to the total number of foreign investors entering the locality. Attracting FDI from partners with strong economic potential, advanced technology, then the disbursement speed is often on time and technology transfer is also higher, and at the same time helps the locality to receive modern advanced technology, increasing labor productivity and minimizing negative effects of FDI on the environment, local economy and community benefits. Large companies with strong financial potential today are multinational companies, transnational corporations, or companies from countries with developed economies such as Japan, Korea and other countries in Europe, these are the companies that countries as well as localities want to attract because of the benefits that these companies bring to the economy. The structure of FDI inflows by production nature: includes the proportion of FDIs in production, manufacturing (technology transfer) and the proportion of FDI outsourcing (utilizing labor) or exploitation of mineral resources (make use of resources). The structure of FDI inflows by technology: including the proportion of FDI at different technological levels (low, medium, high), FDI based on clean technology (no pollution, low consumption technology energy) or dirty technology (polluting the environment greatly and consuming a lot of energy). – Secondly, to consider the economic efficiency of FDI inflows. The economic efficiency of FDI inflows is reflected through the impact of this capital flow on indicators that reflect the economic performance of the locality or country, in particular the contribution of this capital flow to the growth of GRDP of the whole economy, the contribution of this capital flow to improving the efficiency of using resource factors of the local or national economy, ensuring sustainable development goals, properly solving the relationship between economic growth and environmental protection and improvement of the people's quality of life. 881
4. – Thirdly, the impact of FDI inflows on the local economy, society and environment. We promote FDI attraction by protecting the legitimate interests of foreign investors with a legal system in accordance with international practices, but need to improve the regulatory efficiency of the state and improve efficiency in using FDI. Increasing FDI attraction should be considered in the sense that it is consistent with the goals of the socio–economic development strategy of the locality, does it affecting the local socio–economic development in a negative direction? Does it affect people's life and living environment? From the comprehension of the quality of FDI inflows’s concept, based on the current statistical status of the province, it is possible to give specific criteria to analyze the quality of FDI flows as follows: Table 1: Summary of criteria for evaluating the quality of capital flows (Bui Huy Cuong, 2019) No. Criteria Evaluation method This criterion reflects the number of large–scale FDI FDI structure by projects compared to the total number of FDI projects invested capital Criteria to in the province. reflect the This criterion reflects the number of projects coming FDI structure by structure of FDI from different investors compared to the total number investors 1 inflows of FDI projects in the province. FDI structure by This criterion reflects the number of FDI projects by industry and different sectors and fields compared with the total investment sector number of FDI projects in the province. The impact of FDI This criterion will calculate the GRDP growth rate of on local GRDP the FDI sector compared with the GRDP growth rate of growth the whole province. Criteria to Labor productivity is reflected by the ratio of GRDP to reflect the The impact of FDI the number of employees. This indicator is evaluated in impact of FDI on local labor terms of comparing the labor productivity of the FDI inflows on local productivity sector with the average labor productivity of the socio– province. economic– This criteria is to measure the impact of FDI on The impact of FDI environmental structural transformation is determined by the change of on economic development the economic structure in the presence of FDI versus restructuring the absence of FDI. 2 This criteria will analyze whether technological capacity has been improved through FDI activities or The impact of FDI remains at the original level. Consider here the on improving local proportion of projects with high technology, modern, technology capacity and energy saving compared to the total number of FDI projects in the locality. The impact of FDI – Create jobs for workers. on the development – Increase income for local people, thereby improving of social sectors the lives of workers. The impacts of FDI Select technology with little impact on the environment. on environmental protection 882
5. 3. EVALUATION ON THE QUALITY OF FDI INFLOWS – A CASE STUDY OF HUNG YEN PROVINCE Hung Yen with a natural area of 926 km2, population of 1.3 million people, it is a province located in the Red River Delta region, the northern key economic region and the economic triangle of Hanoi – Hai Phong – Quang Ninh, is the eastern gateway of Hanoi capital, Hung Yen has a favorable geographical position to attract foreign investors. Structure of FDI inflows by the scale of investment capital: from 2006 to the end of 2019, Hung Yen province attracted 423 FDI projects with a total registered investment capital of 4.3 billion USD, of which large scale projects (over USD 5,000,000) accounts for a high proportion of 32.4%. Small and medium–sized projects (projects with total investment of less than 500,000 USD) account for a modest rate of 12.76%. Investment partners also have a positive change from small–scale projects to large– scale projects (Hung Yen Department of Planning and Investment, 2006–2020). Structure of FDI inflows by investors: According to data from the Department of Planning and Investment, in the period 2006 to 2019, Hung Yen province had companies and investors from 20 countries and regions conducts foreign direct investment activities. The country that directly invests the most in Hung Yen is Japanese investors with 166 FDI projects (accounting for 39.24% of the number of projects). Second is Korea with 121 FDI projects (accounting for 28.6% of the number of projects) and third is China with 56 FDI projects (accounting for 13.24% of the number of projects). In terms of total registered investment capital, investors from Japan occupy the highest position with over 2.76 billion USD (accounting for 63.82% of total registered investment capital), average investment rate reached 18 million USD/FDI project. This is a relatively high investment rate compared to other projects in the province and in the region. 4. THE IMPACT OF FDI INFLOWS ON LOCAL SOCIO–ECONOMIC–ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT OF HUNG YEN PROVINCE The impacts of FDI on GRDP growth: During the period from 2006 to 2019, Hung Yen's FDI sector affirmed its position and became an important part of the economy. Hung Yen's positive contributions in attracting FDI over the past time have greatly contributed to the overall growth of the local economy. The foreign–invested economic sector has significantly contributed to the scale of the province's GRDP: the proportion of the FDI sector's contribution to the GRDP of the whole province also increased over the years: in 2006 it was 9.72%; increased to 19.1% in 2019. In the period from 2006 to 2019, the growth rate of the FDI sector (from 10–21%) is often higher than that of the province (from 6.85–13.7%). It is important that the contribution of the FDI sector to the growth of the province's GRDP is clearly shown and steadily increasing over the years. In 2006, the FDI sector's contribution to GRDP growth only reached 2.91%, by 2019, the FDI sector's contribution to the GRDP growth of the province reached 11.14% (Hung Provincial Statistical Office Yen, 2006–2019). The impacts of FDI on local labor productivity: During the period 2006 – 2019, the FDI sector in Hung Yen attracted a large number of workers, creating many jobs for local and regional workers. Employees in the FDI sector in 2006 had only 18,246 employees, accounting for 2.89% of the workforce in the whole industry, by 2019 the number of employees in the FDI sector increased to 77,345; accounting for 10.02% of the total number of employees in the entire industry. The labor productivity of the FDI sector tends to increase rapidly with the labor productivity of the whole province, but compared with the productivity of the whole province, the labor productivity of the FDI sector is much higher (2–3 times higher). Labor productivity in the FDI sector has always increased 883
6. from 2006 to present, from 47.59 million VND/person in 2006, reaching 140.31 million VND/person in 2019 (nearly 3 times higher). The impact of FDI inflows on economic restructuring: In the period 2006 – 2019, the economic structure of Hung Yen province has changed according to the rule, the proportion of industry – construction tends to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, the proportion of agriculture and forestry has tended to decrease its structure over the years. The reason that industry – construction tends to increase is because Hung Yen province sets a target to focus on developing the province towards industry, in which the target of attracting FDI is used for development investment. From the modest contribution: accounting for 8.69% of the total investment capital of the whole province in 2006, the FDI sector has accounted for a large proportion of 33% in the total investment capital of the whole province by 2019, rapidly increasing through the years. The FDI sector has high industrial production value in the industrial production value of the whole province (in 2006 accounted for 34.73%, by 2019 it accounted for 30.64%). The FDI inflows into Hung Yen province mainly focus on the fields of industry, processing and manufacturing. In addition to the impact of other factors, FDI inflows have had a strong impact on the economic restructuring of the industry and construction sectors (the lowest contribution was 1.92% in 2013 and the highest was 17, 95% in 2010), contributing to the process of strong economic restructuring in the province. The impact of FDI inflows on improving the local technology capacity: In the period from 2006 to 2019, FDI contributes to technology transfer, improving management skills, technical expertise for workers, building more factories, importing more machines and equipment, promoting the renovation and development of industries, agriculture, forestry and services. In Hung Yen province, most of the machinery and equipment used by FDI enterprises are age from 6–10 years old (about 60%), then there are machinery and equipment used by FDI enterprises are age 1–5 years old (about 40%). This proves that FDI has brought advanced technology into Hung Yen province through the import of many equipment with modern technology lines, new technology with equal or higher level than domestic equipment. The impact of FDI inflows on the development of social sectors: According to data from the Department of Labor – Invalids and Social Affairs, in 2011, the total number of employees in enterprises in the province was 673,662 people, in 2019 increased up to 758,280 people. In which, foreign–invested enterprises increased from 24,556 people in 2011 to 77,345 people in 2019, an increase of 140%; non–state enterprises increased from 608,326 people in 2011 to 638,244 people in 2019, up 4.4%. In 2019, the average salary at FDI enterprises is: 6,728,000 VND/month, while in domestic enterprises, the salary is lower of 4,410,000 VND/month. The impact of FDI inflows on the environment: In the period 2006–2019, along with the process of attracting FDI inflows into Hung Yen province, leading to the process of environmental pollution for industrial zones, plus the process rapid urbanization to meet the needs of workers to live and work in the province has caused overcrowding in industrial zones and urban areas near industrial zones. According to the report of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, most FDI enterprises prepare environmental impact assessment reports before issuing investment licenses and building waste treatment systems before putting the project into operation. But when in operation, only about 60% of businesses operate waste treatment systems before being discharged into the general system. That is because the cost of operating the waste treatment system is very expensive, thus some FDI enterprises have not operated it voluntarily. Through the above analysis, it can be assessed that FDI inflows in Hung Yen province in recent years have contributed to improving production capacity, improving labor productivity, creating value to contribute to GRDP, industrial production value and export value for the province, contributing to budget revenue, creating jobs, increasing income and improving the quality of human resources in 884
7. Hung Yen province. At the same time, FDI inflows have had a spillover effect on other economic sectors through the linkage between this region and other regions in the province, technology and business capacity are also transferred. However, FDI inflows also reveal some limitations such as imbalances in capital flow structures by industry and by location, some FDI projects have low investment efficiency, using a lot of unskilled labor, and has not created value–added, has limited technology and technology transfer roles, mainly outsourcing and assembly projects, therefore the source of technology is not transferred to Vietnam. At the same time, FDI inflows also made the appearance of negative social expressions as well as negative impacts on the environment. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS In the context of the 4th industrial revolution (4.0) taking place strongly, the trade war between major countries, the wave of FDI movement into Southeast Asia, the assurance of sustainable development, Economic development closely combines with social development, economic growth with equity, social progress, economic development associated with environmental protection, ecological balance. Each locality, including Hung Yen province, needs to have "open" orientations to improve the quality of FDI inflows. Some of the following directions can be mentioned: Firstly, focus on the implementation of the orientation to attract high–tech capital flows: Prioritize the development of the production industry of high–tech products, focus on development and attract investment to industries and products with high technology content and added value. Projects attract investment always put high technology as the top attraction criterion, along with implementing the highest incentive policies for this type of project as prescribed by the public law of high technology. Secondly, focus on partners with FDI inflows that meet local requirements: Partners have the ability to bring advanced technology, high technology, modern management systems, create spillover effects to economic development in the country; contribute to the building and forming key industries. The partner has great financial capacity and extensive experience and is capable of stable and long– term investment. The world's leading multinational corporations, investors come from countries with developed economies, countries owning source technology in the G7 group. Thirdly, improving the socio–economic efficiency of FDI projects: The socio–economic benefits of the project are the difference between the benefits that the socio–economic gain can be compared to the costs of implementation the project. Usually, investors are only interested in the profitability of a project based on financial performance analysis. However, from the perspective of state management, one of the important objectives of attracting investment is the goal of bringing efficiency and socio– economic benefits. In the coming time, investment capital attraction should focus on socio–economic efficiency of investment projects. 6.CONCLUSION It can be seen that attracting FDI inflows is very important to the development of each country. Through the above research, we can once again confirm the important role of FDI inflows in the socio– economic development of Hung Yen province, economic restructuring in the direction of industrialization and modernization, create jobs for local workers, increase revenue for the provincial budget, increase export turnover to foreign countries, transfer science and technology. State management agencies of FDI in Hung Yen province need to be aware of the importance of improving the quality of FDI inflows in the process of attracting investment projects into the province, moving from passively welcome foreign investors to actively promote investment, mobilize large foreign investors to invest in the province. 885
8. REFERENCES 13. Bộ Kế hoạch và đầu tư (2018), Kỷ yếu Hội nghị 30 năm đầu tư nước ngoài tại Việt Nam, Hà Nội. 14. Bùi Huy Cường (2017), Bàn về giải pháp tăng cường thu hút đầu tư tại tỉnh Hưng Yên’, Tạp chí Kinh tế và dự báo, số 23. 15. Bùi Huy Cường (2017), Đẩy mạnh thu hút đầu tư vào tỉnh Hưng Yên, Tạp chí Kinh tế châu Á, thái bình dương, số 498. 16. Chính phủ (2006), Nghị định số 108/2006/NĐ–CP quy định chi tiết và hướng dẫn thi hành một số điều của Luật Đầu tư, Hà Nội. 17. Cục thống kê tỉnh Hưng Yên (2006–2019), Niên giám thống kê tỉnh Hưng Yên, Nxb Thống kê, Hà Nội. 18. Đảng bộ tỉnh Hưng Yên, Nghị quyết Đại hội lần thứ XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII. 19. Ngô Thắng Lợi (2013), Kinh tế học phát triển dành cho cao học, NXB Chính trị hành chính. 20. Quốc hội (2005), Luật đầu tư số 59/2005/QH11 ngày 29/11/2005, Hà Nội. 21. Sở Kế hoạch và Đầu tư (2006–2018), Báo cáo về công tác đầu tư nước ngoài trên địa bàn tỉnh Hưng Yên. 22. Thủ tướng Chính phủ (2011), Quyết định số 2111/QĐ–TTg ngày 28/11/2011 về Phê duyệt quy hoạch tổng thể phát triển kinh tế xã hội tỉnh Hưng Yên đến năm 2020 23. UBND tỉnh Hưng Yên (2016), Quy hoạch tổng thể phát triển kinh tế – xã hội tỉnh Hưng Yên đến năm 2020 và định hướng chiến lược đến 2025. 24. Ủy ban nhân dân tỉnh Hưng Yên (2006–2018), Báo cáo tình hình thực hiện kế hoạch phát triển kinh tế – xã hội. APPENDIX Table 1. Scale of foreign direct investment projects 2006–2019 No Registered investment capital (USD) Number of project Rate (%) 1 5.000.000 137 32,4 Total 423 100,00 Source: Statistical Yearbook and Department of Planning and Investment of Hung Yen province Table 2. Structure of FDI inflows in Hung Yen by country of investment Country of Number of project Registered capital (USD million) No investment Project Proportion (%) Registered capital Proportion (%) 1 Japan 166 39,24 2.767,04 63,82 2 Korea 121 28,6 621,82 14,34 3 China 56 13,24 302,81 6,98 4 EU 27 6,38 206,78 4,77 5 ASEAN 13 3,07 76,44 1,76 6 Others 50 11,82 360,81 8,32 Total 423 100 4.335,7 100 Source: Department of Planning and Investment, Industrial Zones Authority of Hung Yen Province 886
9. Figure 3. Structure of FDI inflows by investment sector Food processing Mechanical enginering Electronic refrigeration Textiles, leather Furniture, handicrafts Car, motobike Service Construction and construction materials Source: Department of Planning and Investment, Provincial Industrial Zones Authority Table 3. Proportion of the FDI sector in the GRDP of the whole province 2006 – 2018 GRDP of the whole province GRDP of the FDI sector at GRDP without FDI at Year (at constant prices) constant prices constant prices Billion VND Billion VND % Billion VND % 2006 13.847,02 1.345,93 9,72 12.501,09 90,28 2007 15.750,99 1.628,65 10,34 14.122,34 89,66 2008 17.694,66 1.842,01 10,41 15.852,65 89,59 2009 18.935,06 2.202,15 11,63 16.732,91 88,37 2010 21.228,09 2.496,42 11,76 18.731,67 88,24 2011 23.221,41 2.846,94 12,26 20.374,47 87,74 2012 25.051,26 3.151,45 12,58 21.899,81 87,42 2013 26.767,27 3.493,13 13,05 23.274,14 86,95 2014 28.721,28 3.995,13 13,91 24.726,15 86,09 2015 30.973,03 4.580,91 14,79 26.392,12 85,21 2016 33.475,65 5.329,32 15,92 28.146,33 84,08 2017 36.304,34 6.026,52 16,6 30.277,82 83,4 2018 39.695,17 7.149,10 18,01 32.546,07 81,99 2019 43.553,54 8.318,72 19,1 35.234,82 80,9 Source: Hung Yen Statistical Yearbook, 2006–2019 887
10. Table 4. Labor productivity by economic regions of Hung Yen province 2006–2019 Unit: million VND/person Labor productivity of Labor productivity Labor productivity The impact of Year the whole province at of FDI sector at (excluding the FDI FDI on labor constant prices constant prices sector) productivity (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) = (2) – (4) 2006 20.96 20.41 19.45 1.52 2007 21.88 21.90 20.34 1.54 2008 23.37 25.00 21.68 1.68 2009 26.27 28.38 24.42 1.84 2010 28.07 33.92 25.77 2.30 2011 30.90 37.95 28.47 2.42 2012 33.15 42.91 30.71 2.44 2013 36.20 48.58 33.76 2.44 2014 38.41 53.81 35.85 2.55 2015 41.31 62.46 38.65 2.66 2016 45.03 72.87 41.98 3.05 2017 48.46 86.32 45.59 2.87 2018 52.08 97.49 48.98 3.10 2019 53.12 98.36 49.68 3.44 Source: Hung Yen Statistical Yearbook, 2006–2019 Table 5. The impacts of FDI inflows on economic structure Hung Yen province, period 2006 – 2019 Economic structure (according to GRDP) Industrial– The impact of FDI construction on the structure of Year Agriculture, forestry Industrial – Services structure industry and and fisheries Construction without FDI construction (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) =(3)– (5) 2006 30,5 38,3 31,47 23,83 14,47 2007 28,75 40,25 31,00 25,87 14,38 2008 24,50 42,16 33,34 28,40 13,76 2009 20,45 46,34 33,21 31,07 15,27 2010 17,85 48,12 34,03 30,17 17,95 2011 20,61 46,50 32,89 40,95 5,55 2012 18,09 48,61 33,30 44,00 4,61 2013 16,13 47,26 36,62 45,34 1,92 2014 14,65 48,10 37,25 44,10 4,00 2015 13,54 49,13 37,33 43,19 5,94 2016 12,84 51,15 36,01 42,32 8,83 2017 10,93 51,01 38,06 40,77 10,24 2018 10,58 51,56 37,86 36,98 14,58 2019 8,44 62,15 22,74 42,66 19,49 Source: Hung Yen Statistical Yearbook, 2006–2019 888
11. Table 6. Number and structure of employees by economic type, 2011–2019 Unit: people Foreign investment State enterprises Non–state enterprises Yeau Total enterprises Labor Ratio% Labor Ratio% Labor Ratio% 2011 673.662 40.780 6,05 608.326 90,3 24.556 3,65 2012 674.609 40.412 5,99 608.865 90,2 25.332 3,81 2013 687.104 41.125 5,98 616.742 89,76 29.237 4,26 2014 700.501 38.884 5,55 624.552 89,15 37.065 5,3 2015 712.643 39.820 5,58 629.436 88,32 43.387 6,1 2016 721.282 40.430 5,6 633.051 87,76 47.801 6,64 2017 728.254 40.935 5,62 631.809 86,75 55.510 7,63 2018 735.940 41.492 5,63 635.309 86,32 59.139 8,05 2019 758.280 42.691 5,63 638.244 84,17 77.345 10,2 Source: Hung Yen Department of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs, 2011–2019 889