Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 148, Issue 4, pp 847–858 | Cite as

Corruption, Types of Corruption and Firm Financial Performance: New Evidence from a Transitional Economy

  • Huong Van Vu
  • Tuyen Quang Tran
  • Tuan Van Nguyen
  • Steven Lim


Using a nationwide survey of provincial institutional quality and a sample of private manufacturing small and medium scale enterprises (the SMEs), this paper contributes to the literature by considering for the first time the effects of corruption on the financial performance of Vietnamese private SMEs. Interestingly, contrary to previous findings, we find that corruption when measured by a dummy variable, does not affect firms’ financial performance after controlling for heterogeneity, simultaneity and dynamic endogeneity. However, the intensity of bribery and the majority of the forms of corruption were found to have negative impacts on firms’ financial performance. Hence, a typical approach using only a dummy variable for bribery might not adequately evaluate the impact of bribe intensity or even ignores the negative impacts of some types of bribes on firms’ financial performance. The findings suggest that anti-corruption measures are vital for the development of the Vietnamese private SMEs.


Corruption Financial performance SMEs Institutional quality Vietnam 



The authors thank editors and referees for their helpful comments and the research is funded by Vietnam National University, Hanoi (VNU) under project number QG.15.40.


  1. Ades, A., & Di Tella, R. (1996). The causes and consequences of corruption: A review of recent empirical contributions. IDS Bulletin, 27(2), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bai, J., Jayachandran, S., Malesky, E. J., & Olken, B. A. (2013). Does economic growth reduce corruption? Theory and evidence from Vietnam: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  3. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond, S. R. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1(2), 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheung, Y. L., Rau, P. R., & Stouraitis, A. (2012). How much do firms pay as bribes and what benefits do they get? Evidence from corruption cases worldwide. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Jong, G., Tu, P. A., & Van Ees, H. (2012). Which entrepreneurs bribe and what do they get from it? Exploratory evidence from Vietnam. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Rosa, D., Gooroochurn, N., & Gorg, H. (2010). Corruption and productivity: firm-level evidence from the BEEPS survey. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, No.1632. Kiel institute for the World Economy. Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  8. Donadelli, M., Fasan, M., & Magnanelli, B. S. (2014). The agency problem, financial performance and corruption: Country, industry and firm level perspectives. European Management Review, 11(3–4), 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faruq, H., Webb, M., & Yi, D. (2013). Corruption, bureaucracy and firm productivity in Africa. Review of Development Economics, 17(1), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisman, R., & Svensson, J. (2007). Are corruption and taxation really harmful to growth? Firm level evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 83(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flannery, M. J., & Hankins, K. W. (2013). Estimating dynamic panel models in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 19, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. González, V. M. (2013). Leverage and corporate performance: International evidence. International Review of Economics & Finance, 25, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halkos, G. E., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2010). Corruption and economic efficiency: Panel data evidence. Global Economic Review, 39(4), 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halpern, L., Koren, M., & Szeidl, A. (2005). Imports and productivity. Retrieved from
  15. Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hung, H. (2008). Normalized collective corruption in a transitional economy: Small treasuries in large Chinese enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(1–2), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jain, A. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(1), 71–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasahara, H., & Rodrigue, J. (2008). Does the use of imported intermediates increase productivity? Plant-level evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 87(1), 106–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koellinger, P. (2008). The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance: Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe. Research Policy, 37(8), 1317–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lau, C. K. M., Demir, E., & Bilgin, M. H. (2013). Experience-based corporate corruption and stock market volatility: Evidence from emerging markets. Emerging Markets Review, 17, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Le, C. L. V. (2010). Technical efficiency performance of Vietnamese manufacturing small and medium enterprises. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Economics-Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
  22. Lou, Y. (2002). Corruption and organization in Asian management system. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lui, F. T. (1985). An equilibrium queuing model of bribery. The Journal of Political Economy, 760–781.Google Scholar
  24. Malesky, E. J., 2004. Push, pull, and reinforcing: the channels of FDI influence on provincial governance in Vietnam. In: Kerkvliet, Ben, Marr, David (Eds.), Beyond Hanoi: Local Governance in Vietnam. Institute for South East Asian Studies and NIAS Press, Singapore, pp. 285–333.Google Scholar
  25. Malesky, E. J., 2007. The Vietnam Provincial Competitive Index 2007: Measuring Economic Governance for Private Sector Development. USAID and VCCI, Hanoi.Google Scholar
  26. Malesky, E. (2008). Straight ahead on red: how foreign direct investment empowers subnational leaders. The Journal of Politics, 70(01), 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malesky, E. (2009). The Vietnam provincial competitiveness index 2008: Measuring economic governance for private sector. Retrieved from
  28. Markussen, T., Newman, C., Khai, L. D., Diem, H. X., Nhan, T. T. T., Thanh, N. Q., et al. (2012). Characteristics of the Vietnamese rural economy: Evidence from a 2012 rural household survey in 12 provinces of Vietnam. Hanoi: Social Labour Publisher.Google Scholar
  29. Méon, P.-G., & Weill, L. (2010). Is corruption an efficient grease? World Development, 38(3), 244–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murphy, K., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1993). Why is rent-seeking so costly to growth? American Economic Review, 83(2), 409–414.Google Scholar
  31. Nguyen, T., Locke, S., & Reddy, K. (2014). A dynamic estimation of governance structures and financial performance for Singaporean companies. Economic Modelling, 40(C), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nguyen, T. T., & Van Dijk, M. A. (2012). Corruption, growth, and governance: Private versus state-owned firms in Vietnam. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(11), 2935–2948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nickell, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49(6), 1417–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rand, J., & Tarp, F. (2012). Firm-level corruption in Vietnam. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 60(3), 571–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roodman, D. (2009). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 71(1), 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rose-Ackerman, S. (1997). Role of the World bank in controlling corruption. Law & Pol’y Int’l Bus, 29, 93.Google Scholar
  38. Schultz, E. L., Tan, D. T., & Walsh, K. D. (2010). Endogeneity and the corporate governance-performance relation. Australian Journal of Management, 35(2), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pierre-Guillaumeméon, & Sekkat, K. (2005). Does corruption grease or sand the wheels of growth? Public Choice, 122, 69–97.Google Scholar
  40. Svensson, J. (2005). Eight questions about corruption. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vial, V., & Hanoteau, J. (2010). Corruption, manufacturing plant growth, and the Asian paradox: Indonesian evidence. World Development, 38(5), 693–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vu, H., Holmes, M., Lim, S., & Tran, T. (2014). Exports and profitability: A note from quantile regression approach. Applied Economics Letters, 21(6), 442–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang, Y., & You, J. (2012). Corruption and firm growth: Evidence from China. China Economic Review, 23(2), 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), 581–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (4th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  46. World Bank, [WB]. (2012). Well begun, not yet done: Vietnam’s remarkable progress on poverty reduction and the emerging challenges. Retrieved from
  47. Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom*. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhou, Q., Faff, R., & Alpert, K. (2014). Bias correction in the estimation of dynamic panel models in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 25, 494–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Academy of FinanceHanoiVietnam
  3. 3.Faculty of Political EconomyVNU University of Economics and BusinessHanoiVietnam
  4. 4.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationDalat UniversityDa LatVietnam

Personalised recommendations