Dollarization in Vietnam

What is dollarization? Dollar and “ization”. Dollar here can be any dollar, or any currency, but in most cases, this word refers to United States dollar - $. And what does “ization” mean? It means the inhabitants of a country use foreign currency in parallel to or instead of the domestic currency. So, how can we know whether a country is under the state of dollarization? According to IMF, an economy is considered to experience dollarization when more than 30% of its bank deposit is dominated in dollar or foreign currencies.

If we follow the criterion above, it seems that dollarizaion has not occured in Vietnam yet. However, it is worth noting that although Vietnam has not reached the 30% roof, it has passed the 20% level. Moreover, it is common that goods in Vietnam are priced in dollar. So, it is certain that if there is nothing to be done, dollarization in Vietnam is just a matter of time.

But wait! Is dollarization good or bad? If it is good, then it is pointless to get worried. Like everything and phenomenons on Earth, dollarization is good, and bad also. In a country where inflation becomes a big problem like Vietnam, dollarization is good way to hedge from devaluation of the domestic currency and to buy goods in unofficial markets. If a country experience 100% dollarization, which means it does not have its own currency, there is no need to worry about monetary policy. The only concern will be fiscal policy alone. Dollarization helps banks and enterprises integrate with the world better. With so much dollar in deposit account, there is no need for bank to borrow from its foreign counterparts. Dollarization also lowers the transition cost of converting dollar into domestic currency and vice versa. However, the list of arguements against dollarization is long also. First of all, dollarized country looses an important adjustment mechanism, especially in case of external shocks. Severe swings in output and employment due to asymmetric shocks can only be avoided through domestic adjustment mechaninsm, particularly wage flexibility and fiscal policy. Futher, central bank in such countries looses the lender of last resort function. In other words, money supply becomes in elastic, systemic risk in financial sector increases. And if there is a foreign currency existing parallel with the domestic one, for example - USD, the country will financial depend heavily on America. And it will soon lead to political and social dependence. Dollarization is one of the results caused by impossible trinity: a country can only choose to purchase 2 out of 3 policies: a independent monetary policy - a complete control of inflation, exchange rate of its cunrrency, and management of capital flow. Depending on each country with its own characteristics, one can choose to let its currency float while others want to control inflation. It means, dollarization is not always bad. However, if our country has, from the beginning, decided not to depend on a specific foreign currency, dollarization will do more harm than good.

The next question comes to us: if dollarization is bad, to our economy, why is it happening? Before we answer that question, let’s find out the source of the dollars we are using now.

The main source of foreign currency comes from export sector. In 2010, Vietnam collected over $72 billion through export. Bear in mind that GDP of Vietnam is just a little bit over $100 billion to understand how big is that figure. However, we spent nearly $85 billion importing. That resulted in approximately $13billion of trade deficit. Therefore, in Vietnam, export is not a good way to earn dollars, although exporters always hold in hand large amount of dollar in cash and deposit. But there is one thing worth considering about “export”. Though the legal and official exporters do not help much, smugglers can really effect the market. The money they have through smuggling is in cash, and flowing to market quickly and uncontrollably.

It is lucky for Vietnam that we are not in the mercantilism era. The trade deficit can be eased with other sources. One of them is foreign investment. There are many kinds of investment, but mainly there are 3 kinds: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), Foreign Portfolio Investment (FPI) and economic aid such as ODA. In 2010, Vietnam ranked 12th in the list of attracting FDI among countries (about $18 billion). FPI is much lesser, only $1 billion. ODA is promised at the figure of more than $8 billion. Enough to erase the gap between export and import. Oversea remittance can also be an important source. And finally, tourism. There were more than 5 miilion of foreign tourists coming to Vietnam last year. Assuming that each tourist spent $1000, we would have $5 billion totally.

Now that we have found out all the main sources of dollar in the market, we can answer the question why dollarization is existing.

One of the most worth noting characteristics of our economy is its instability and inflation, especially in recent years. Afraid of inflation, many people have chosen to hold USD instead of VND. Inflation has caused record high interest rate of VND while interest rate for USD still remains low. That has led to bigger proportion in borrowing and lending USD. This action is quite comprehensible, though it worsens the situation.

Secondly, Vietnamese people still uses cash in daily trading. This has helped USD to get deepened into the economy because government can hardly control that. Moreover, the most valuable note of VND is 500k VND while $100 is worth more than 2 million. Therefore, many people prefer using USD as a way to trade assets with big value.

It’s only a problem if we have a solution. It is true that there are solutions for the situation. But I am not about to suggest some. In this last part, let’s have a look at an event happening in the current days. 6 moths ago, VND depreciated sharply. At that time, it was predicted by many investors, including me, that sooner or later, 1 USD would equal 25k VND at the end of 2011. However, now, middle of June, 1 USD is only equal to 20.100 VND, and it does not seem to reach the target. What had happened? A quick action from government and central bank has reversed the situation. Money exchange agencies are under strict management. Required reserve of USD is raised up, which leads to lower deposit interest rate and higher lending rate in USD. Bank system attract dollar from the market. Commonly, such actions will result in more appreciation of USD because supply in market does not match demand. However, it is VND whose value rises against USD. It is true that supply has declined. But demand for USD has decreased too, at a greater pace than supply’s. Though these actions will not be effective in the long-run, they have somehow illustrated the power of government. The Government can fix everything. The only question is: Do they want to do that?

Kz

June, 2011.

Charity..

Một trong những bước tiến hóa tích cực của con người chính là lòng hảo tâm. Đã từ lâu, chúng ta, những con người bình thường, thường có xu hướng đóng góp một chút gì đó để giúp những người khó khăn hơn chúng ta. Có nhiều cách để đóng góp: bỏ thời gian để lao động công ích hoặc đơn giản, đóng góp vào các tổ chức từ thiện. Tuy nhiên, nếu như phải chọn lựa giữa các tổ chức, lời khuyên đưa ra là hãy tránh xa những tổ chức thiện lớn và có tổ chức. Tại sao lại như vậy? Liệu điều này có hơi ngược ngạo, vì chính những tổ chức này có uy tín và hoạt động hiệu quả hơn?

Điểm mạnh của những tổ chức từ thiện lớn cũng chính là điểm yếu của nó. Nó yếu, vì nó to lớn. Điều này cũng giống như khi nghĩ về chính phủ. Big Government thường đi kèm với corrupt và thiếu hiệu quả.

Một điều có thể dễ dàng thấy được là tổ chức từ càng lớn, nó càng cần nhiều người điều hành, và tổ chức từ thiện cũng vậy. Tiếc thay, những người nay cũng cần được phải trả lương. Tiền lương của họ chỉ có thể đến từ tiền đóng góp. 1 phần tiền từ thiện đã bị lãng phí vì mục đích như vậy.

Đã có bao giờ chúng ta tự hỏi làm sao chúng ta biết được đến các tổ chức từ thiện lớn? Thông qua bạn bè, đi đường gặp, hay thông qua báo chí và các phương tiện truyền thông? Có thể chúng ta biết được bằng cả 3 con đường, nhưng liệu chúng ta sẽ chọn tổ chức nào? Đa phần mọi người đều chọn những sản phẩm xuất hiện trên những phương tiện truyền thống, vì đó là dấu hiệu đảm bảo cho 1 sự vững mạnh đằng sau. Không chỉ có dầu gội, xe hơi, … ngay cả các tổ chức từ thiện cũng thường xuyên marketing để kêu gọi thêm những đóng góp. Và hãy nhớ đến quy tắc đầu của kinh tế: “There is no free lunch”. Tuy là mang danh nghĩa từ thiện, nhưng các hoạt động marketing vẫn tốn 1 khoản tiền nhất định. Và dĩ nhiên, chi phí này được lấy từ tiền từ thiện. Dùng tiền từ thiện để kêu gọi thêm tiền.

Cũng giống như chính phủ, khi tổ chức từ thiện càng lớn, càng nhiều khả năng xảy ra những gian lận. Điều này xảy ra không chỉ ở Việt Nam mà còn ở các nước tiến bộ khác, đặc biệt là ở những tổ chức trực thuộc nhà thuộc.

Có 1 điều mọi người thường quên mất, đó là tổ chức từ thiện cũng chính là 1 tổ chức kinh doanh. Các tổ chức này có những văn phòng, những trung tâm, những “tình nguyện viên”, những nhân viên luôn tìm cách thuyết phục chúng ta về 1 vấn nạn nào đó mà thế giới đang vướng phải. Ung thư, AIDS, ấm lên toàn cầu, nghèo đói, thảm họa... Quá nhiều thảm họa trong thế giới, quá nhiều người cần giúp. Nhưng liệu tất cả những vấn nạn đó đã đủ nghiêm trọng và cấp thiết để chúng ta phải đóng góp? 1 trong những ví dụ điển hình nhất là những lời kêu gọi về sự ấm lên toàn cầu - global warming. Đến nay, vẫn chưa có những bằng chứng khoa học đủ thuyết phục về vấn đề này. [http://karlzed.blogspot.com/2011/03/earth-hour-are-you-serious.html] Nhưng đã có rất nhiều các tổ chức xuất hiện để quyên góp tiền cho hiện tượng này. Nhớ rằng khi chúng ta ngừng quyên góp, hàng ngàn việc làm sẽ bị mất. Điều này thật đáng buồn, nhưng đó không phải là trách nhiệm của chúng ta. Rất nhiều các tổ chức từ thiện có những mục đích không rõ ràng. Tốt hơn là hãy tránh xa.

Và cuối cùng, những người có khả năng quyên góp thật sự đang làm việc. Bill Gates và Warren Buffet làm công việc từ thiện tốt hơn chúng ta 1000 lần. Họ tìm ra chính xác những vấn đề cần sự đóng góp, quyên góp hiệu quả, và đầu tư số tiền tồn đọng 1 cách hợp lí. Những đồng tiền lẻ của chúng ta sẽ không là gì khi đặt cạnh bên hàng tỷ USD của họ. Vì thế, hãy để họgiải quyết những vấn đề to lớn, chúng ta có thể tạo ra những sự khác biệt to lớn đối với những người mà Bill Gates chưa từng nghe đến tên.

Không đóng góp vào những tổ chức từ thiện lớn không đồng nghĩa chúng ta không đóng góp gì cả. Vẫn còn nhiều cách để giúp ích cho xã hội. Hãy tự mình làm từ thiện, vì điều đó có thể giúp chúng ta có được 2 lợi thế:

1/ Đóng góp trực tiếp vào nơi đang cần giúp đỡ. Chúng ta biết được chính xác những đồng tiền chúng ta làm ra được chảy vào đâu và có tác dụng thế nào. Chúng ta được gặp mặt những người chúng ta giúp đỡ, chúng ta giải quyết 1 vấn đề cấp bách, chúng ta biến thành một anh hùng từ một người bình thường.

2/ Hành động ngay hôm nay. Tìm tờ báo, và xem trên mục cần giúp đỡ. Đó là những trường hợp mà một món tiền nhỏ có thề tạo nên những thay đổi to lớn.

Và khi làm từ thiện 1 mình, hãy đóng góp 1 cách vô danh, vì 2 lí do. 1/ Từ thiện. Khi nói tới từ thiện, chúng ta không mong chờ được người khác cảm tạ, hay tôn vinh. Hãy đóng góp chỉ vì muốn thấy 1 xã hội tốt hơn. 2/ Vấn đề luật pháp. Khi tư mình đóng góp, vì không phải là một người chuyên nghiệp trong vấn đề này, chúng ta sẽ ít nhiều có khả năng rơi vào các vấn đề nguy hiểm về mặt luật pháp và xã hội. Vì thế, tốt hơn là hãy làm việc một cách vô danh.

Và khi thậm chí chúng ta không trực tiếp đóng góp gì, kể cả 1 mình hoặc vào các tổ chức từ thiện lớn, cũng đừng vì thế mà cảm thấy tội lỗi. Khi chúng ta đóng thuế, chúng ta đã đồng thời đóng góp vào các tổ chức từ thiện lớn của chính phủ. Chỉ có điều, lần này, hãy tự mình làm từ thiện.

Let Bill Gates save the world, we can save a life.

kz

June, 2011

special thanks to Freakonomics

Daddies' Gendered Journeys

Daddies' Gendered Journeys

http://buinadine.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/daddies-gendered-journeys/

             If there is one thing that can span across barriers of time and space, it is societies’ conscious attitude towards gender roles and what it means to be man and woman. For the longest time there existed an unspoken understanding that the fairer sex was deemed mothers and housekeepers while their husbands held responsibility for protection and financial security. Western cultures were pioneers in challenging these social norms. The 20^th century and women rights movement proved to be critical in realigning these gender roles within society, and particularly within the family. Parenting, a job traditionally considered for women, has gradually been taken up by men alike. Due to different government policies and traditions, European fathers are more likely to embrace the joys at home than their American counterparts.

            Looking back at thousands of years, in nearly every culture across the world, the traditional image of a family is that of the man at the forefront and center, with his wife in the background. Known as patriarchy – a system in which the male is the primary figure, the “undisputed heads and masters of households” over their wife and children by “law and custom” – society credited the husband as the breadwinner and the wife as the caregiver (Smith 4). Historically, the idea of a working mother started in a farm based economy. Women worked alongside their husbands, helped with farming and tending cattle, all the while performing household tasks like cooking and sewing. Although mothering and production went hand in hand, they did not assert control over what was produced (Smith 5). As society switched to an industry based economy, the roles of man and woman changed within the family. Until then, all family members contributed to the home economy; now the men had to work as breadwinner outside the home while the women were restricted to the home and to provide motherly care for the children and tend to household duties. The “ideology of breadwinning” and providing the family a sense of security gave men a sense of duty and dignity, all the while shaping “their sense of self, manhood, and gender” (Smith 9). In a way, breadwinning was a sign of masculinity.

            The 19^th century saw the birth of feminism, the change in attitudes towards women’s rights, and the idea of a “new father”. The Great Depression in the 1930s affected both the U.S. and Europe. Unemployment led to fathers being at home more, and society thus started promoting the role of the father as both breadwinner and caregiver to his children (Smith 10). Even so, this did little to change tradition. On the other hand, more and more women found jobs. World War II only reinforced women’s labor. With men going off to war, it was up to the women to work in factories to support the war effort. When the war was over, they were reluctant to resign their new roles and go back to traditional pre-war society. The feminist movement of the 60s and 70s fought against constraints of traditional gender roles, and sought equality in both the workforce and at home. No longer was it solely up to the man to support the family; the burden was shared in two. Marriage now meant equitable sharing of household responsibilities as well as economic support. These implications were increasingly accepted by women, if not so readily by men.

            As revolutionary as the feminist movement was, its purpose never was to reverse traditional arrangements. In fact, its forefront demand was to put an end to discrimination at work and to split housework and childcare evenly between spouses (Smith 19). Once women were given more freedom and allowed to push boundaries beyond the home, the odds were more favorable to them. It was modern to pursue a career, but it was also customary for them to be a mother. For men, going from fifty-fifty responsibility to female breadwinner and male caregivers, however, was a long shot. Not only was it a long shot, it was also very critically looked upon. Some were unable or unwilling to let go of being “lord and master” of his household and refused change (Smith 20). The difference between generations was also significant. Older generations, especially those who served during WWII, were less likely than their sons to accept this new shift in gender roles. In their mind, they had defined the true meaning of masculinity, and thus by staying at home, one was less than a man. It was much harder for men to overcome these psychological obstacles. Even so, favorable or not, by the 90s, it was not abnormal to hear the term stay-at-home dad. The image of a nurturing father had become real at last.

            In traditional or modern societies, childbearing has always been influenced by economic factors. Traditionally, men were employed in the labor market and earned a living to provide for their families, while women were dedicated to domestic work and care activities. Naturally, children grew up under the eye and guidance of the mother. Problems arose when transformations that started taking place in the mid-60s and the “pursuit of personal fulfillment through work” conflicted with “cultural milieu” and family values (Lutz 111).

            Nowadays, the birth of the first child and the responsibilities that come with it can lead to adjustments and re-definitions of life patterns, and affects both parents, whereas in previous centuries, it undisputedly fell into the mother’s hands. In a study carried out by Giovannini and Ventimiglia in 1994 comparing four European countries, France, Italy, Denmark, and Ireland, about a third of all respondents said their “life habits had changed very much” after the birth of the first child, and 71% reported that the way they organize their days was changed in some way. The difference in responses lay in the effect on the respondents’ professional tasks. Of Italian parents, only 26% reported no change in effects. The numbers in Ireland, France and Denmark were 37%, 62% and 51% respectively. Tradition still plays a big part in women embracing the mothering role as seen in Italy and Ireland. The greater availability of public childcare and more progressive views could explain the relatively lower effect on professional tasks in France and Denmark (Fine-Davis 99-100). In 2001, the employment ratio for male and female in the U.S. was 80.6% and 67.9%. This is similar to the Netherlands (82.4% and 63.7%), Sweden (74.8% and 71.0%) and the UK (77.8% and 64.6%). There is a larger difference in employment ratio in Germany (72.8% and 57.9%) and even larger in Italy (67.5% and 39.6%) (Daly 75). The birth of a child increases family burdens, and while women who face these burdens in Nordic countries are “balanced by compensatory measures,” the same thing cannot be said in Mediterranean countries (Lutz 114). Not only are women there influenced by social norms, they are also left without adequate support and face a decision of whether to work part-time or become a full-time mother. Other factors also affect families whose parents both work, including working hours, work pressure, and family policies. This has left parents with a dilemma of work-life balance.

            The ease and difficulty in reconciling work and family varies across different countries. In the same study carried out in four European countries, 56.8% parents said it was easy to combine work and family life while 43.2% said it was difficult (Fine-Davis 179). One factor in determining the difficulty was the amount of help spouses got with domestic and childcare responsibilities. The more help the woman got from her husband, the easier it was to manage. In the case both parents were busy, the child was often left in the care of schools, childcare centers, or relatives. Although 88% of Danish children were being looked after in day care centers, most Irish or Italian children were looked after by relatives (especially grandparents), partly due to less developed public provision. In Ireland and Italy, 22% and 23.5% of mothers who worked part-time made an effort to care for the children (Fine-Davis 228). The biggest issue factor that contributes greatly to how difficult it was to combine work and family, however, is time. The average number of hours worked per week is 42 hours for men and 32 hours for women. A little over 20% of couples had both partners working fulltime. Of the women interviewed, 27% wanted to work part-time, most claiming they wanted to spend more time with their children. Likewise, 13% of men wanted to work part-time, with a little over half stating they would like more time for children. One strategy to a work-family balance is working part-time, but only 14% of couples adopted the full-time husband/part-time wife pattern. Instead, 24% of couples opted to have the husband employed and the wife to stay at home (Fine-Davis 184). In short, European women want the best of both worlds; they want to lead a professional life while maintaining the role of a mother. Scandinavian countries assist the women’s entry into the labor force by introducing favorable government policies and services aimed at lightening family responsibilities. Southern European countries, however, relied on family ties and the government provided less help and support. Thus, the workload proved too much and women either left the work force to concentrate solely on caring for the family or put off giving birth altogether.

            One positive effect of the work-family dilemma is the emerging idea and growing popularity of a stay-at-home dad. In both the U.S. and Europe, more and more men are going against social norms and reversing the breadwinner model. They prove to society how “family roles as caregivers and breadwinners can be negotiated instead of imposed by gender expectations” (Smith 171). Whoever said men could not manage to take care of children? Truth is, these classic gender roles are interchangeable; men can look after the young ones and women can support their families. This rejection of traditional ways is evident in one couple, Chien and Ashley Nguyen of Kansas City, Missouri. Chien was born in Vietnam in 1975. His parents fled the country and settled in Kansas City with help from the Catholic community. Raised in a Catholic Vietnamese household, Chien was influenced by religious and cultural beliefs. He was a scientist in pharmaceutical product development, but without a graduate degree, it was unlikely he would advance much further. His wife Ashley, on the other hand, was a doctor in her third year of residency when they became parents. Instead of taking the dual-income route and placing their two daughters in day care, Chien opted to stay at home while Ashley pursued her career. He took up housework and cooking, as well as various child-care tasks, and is content with his role. The fence that Ashley and Chien had to straddle was not only gender and psychological, but also cultural and religious. When faced with Chien’s fence, other U.S. and European immigrants alike must make the choice of whether to ‘climb over’ old values, customs, and practices to survive or cling on to traditional ways that would hold them back. No longer are men and women bound to certain roles; the 21^st century has seen a fusion of old and new family forms: “egalitarian gender values” onto “traditional familialism” (Smith 80-85).   

            Contrary to popular belief that only women can take care of children, men make good fathers and often find fatherhood to be very rewarding. Caryn Medved, an associate professor of communications at Baruch College in New York, has remarked how many fathers talked about how rewarding and self-satisfying the experience can be. “I’ve had men crying when I interviewed them,” Medved says. “I remember a man in Utah who talked about the ability to be a father in a way his father couldn’t, and the joy he felt in seeing his children grow.” (Stout). Fatherhood triggers a “broad and deep emotional and behavioral changes in fathers, strengthening their attachment to children and their ability to care for them” (Smith 172). Michelle Mullen, a North Carolina breadwinner whose husband, PJ, stays at home, remarks, “A man who changes diapers is just sexy.” At times PJ might have doubts about being a hands-on dad but at the end of the day he is convinced this is the right choice for his family.  “You do wonder about your self-worth, because you’re not earning a paycheck,” he says, “But my wife is the only one who matters. As long as she can look at me and realize that I’m doing the best for our family, it doesn’t matter that some random guy thinks I’m less of a man.” (Stout).

            The question that now arises is that, if society has provided a gateway for men to overcome traditional norms, why are American dads less likely than their European counterparts to embrace the idea of staying at home? The answer lies in family values and government policies. Americans are aware of, if not astonished at, the depth of generous benefits and services provided for the Europeans. The “European style” is defined by universal health care, paid parental leave, inexpensive to free university education, retirement benefits, unemployment benefits…to name a few. In numbers, in 2009, the U.S. devoted 16% of its $14 trillion economy (about $7300/person) to workfare support, while Europe contributed 27% of its $17 trillion economy (about $9200/person). The 25% more that Europe spends per capita makes a huge difference, and enables Europe to surpass the U.S. in most quality of life categories (Hill 74). Unlike the U.S., when Europe says it supports “family values”, it means it in actual practice. With an aim to keeping every citizen healthy and working, it has geared its government policies to reflect the European conception of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. By spending “three times more per capita on families than does the U.S.,” Europe exercised a system that puts family in the forefront and center (Hill 75).

            Whereas Europe provides paid parental leave for both mothers and fathers in the event of child birth or sick child, the U.S. guarantees nothing. U.S. companies offering paid maternity leave dropped from 27% in 1998 to 16% in 2008. Europe recognizes the importance of raising and caring for a child, especially in the early stages of the baby’s life, and its value for the entire society, and thus provides the necessary help and support to make both parents feel at ease. In Sweden, mothers receive 1.3 years off and two-thirds of their wages during the time off, while also guaranteed the same position when she returns to work. In Norway, the mother gets up to a year off, 80% of their salary, and a secured job position to return to. In the baby’s second year, the father is offered benefits to stay home. While other countries are a bit less generous, benefits are still substantial (Hill 76). On top of the paid leave, European nations pay parents a monthly check for the first eighteen years of the child’s. German and Dutch governments are most generous, paying about $200 per child per month. Called kiddie stipends, these help pay for the child’s needs and development. American families, on the other hand, are left to support themselves. Sadly, the U.S. identifies welfare with socialism instead of support for working families and family values (Hill 79).

            Family values are also seen in the amount of time Europeans spend with their families. Americans work on average 1976 hours per year, while the Germans and French work 400 hours less, giving them about an extra seven weeks off. Even the British, deemed hard workers in Europe, work 200 fewer hours, or twenty five days off. These extra days are a combination of shorter workweeks, more vacation time, holidays or more sick leaves. This makes it easier for Europeans to balance their professional and private lives. Parents are able to tend to a sick child, an ailing family member or even take time off for the sake of enjoying life without having to fear job loss. Given the flexibility in career breaks, it is no wonder Europeans are credited with living a life of leisure. That is not to say they have lost their edge or competiveness in the workforce; they are just as productive as Americans (Hill 80).

             Childbearing is equally important as having a career. It takes up money, time, and effort on the parents’ part. The transition from being breadwinner to househusband still has an effect on the husband’s ego. Despite the feeling that it might be a blow to one’s masculinity, every father desires to spend more time with his kids. By acknowledging the significance of having a child not only on the family, but also on society, European nations have gone out of their way to make the work-life balance as comfortable as possible. Inarguably, Europeans receive more benefits and support from the government than American do. It is this mindset, and generous assistance from the government, that parents are more likely to stay-at-home with their children, whether it is part-time or full-time.

            Gone are the days a father would be looked down upon when he shows affection and caring for his wife and family. Society has changed drastically in recent decades, and the definitive line between what it means to be man and woman has indeed blurred, and the roles have become interchangeable. The gendered journey a man has to take is not without its difficulties and obstacles. Whether it is traditions, customs, or psychological reasons that he has to overcome, in the end, fatherhood is worth it. Between the U.S. and Europe alone, European fathers are more likely to become a full-time Mr. Mom than their American counterparts. Tradition, family values, and government assistance play a major role in their decision. Fathers will find it reassuring to know not only their wives, but also society have got their backs, and more will be embracing the joys of parenthood. If moms can actively engage in the workforce, dads, too, can win children’s hearts at home.

Works Cited

Daly, Mary, and Katherine Rake. Gender and the Welfare State: Care, Work and Welfare in Europe and the USA. Cambridge: Polity, 2003.

Lutz, Wolfgang, Rudolph Richter, and Chris Wilson, eds. "Family Forms and the Youth Generation in an Enlarged Nation." The New Generations of Europeans: Demography and Families in the Enlarged European Union.London: Earthscan, 2006. 101-84.

Fine-Davis, Margret. Fathers and Mothers: Dilemmas of the Work-life Balance : a Comparative Study in Four European Countries. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2004. Print.

Hill, Steven. "Family Values, European Style." Europe's Promise: Why The European Way Is The Best Hope in an Insecure Age. Berkeley: University of California, 2010. 72-92.

Smith, Jeremy Adam. The Daddy Shift: How Stay-at-home Dads, Breadwinning Moms, and Shared Parenting Are Transforming the American Family.Boston: Beacon, 2009.

Stout, Hilary. "Real-Life Stay-at-Home Husbands.” msn.com. MSNBC. 9 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 May 2011. <http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/just-dreaming/article.aspx?cp-documentid=25399725>

http://buinadine.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/daddies-gendered-journeys/

please post your comments in this: http://buinadine.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/daddies-gendered-journeys/

Điều gì đang xảy ra với giá sữa?

Có thể nói, hiện nay, một trong những mặt hàng gây bức xúc nhất trong xã hội Việt Nam chính là mặt hàng sữa. Theo nhiều khảo sát của các tờ báo Việt, giá sữa ở Việt Nam đang ở mức cao nhất thế giới. Nhưng liệu thật sự có như vậy? Và những gì đang tác động vào giá sữa ở Việt Nam?

Giá sữa ở Việt Nam cao, điều này là chắc chắn. Thật tế, chưa có 1 khảo sát, nghiên cứu chính thức nào được công bố số liệu đầy đủ, được kiểm chứng một cách khoa học từ một tổ chức có uy tín trong lĩnh vực thống kê chứng tỏ rằng giá sữa ở Việt Nam cao nhất thế giới. Các tờ báo Việt vẫn thường có những kết luận về giá sữa Việt Nam cao nhất thế giới, nhưng thật tế, việc khảo sát không hề đơn giản. Chỉ riêng với mặt hàng sữa bộ, đã có hàng trăm nhãn hiệu, mặt hàng khác nhau. Qua các nước khác nhau, cùng 1 mặt hàng nhưng lại mang những nhãn hiệu khác nhau, vì thế để tìm được các sản phẩm trùng nhau ở các thị trường là không phải đơn giản. Và số lượng sản phẩm cần phải so sánh cần phải đặt đến 1 con số nhất định mới có thể từ đó rút ra được kết luận. Nhìn kĩ lại, đa phần các bài viết về giá sữa cao ở Việt Nam chủ yếu tâp trung vào việc giá sữa ở Việt Nam cao hơn cả giá sữa ở Mỹ, Châu Âu, … - các quốc gia có thu nhập cao hơn nhiều so với Việt Nam. Điều này không có nghĩa giá sữa ở Việt Nam là cao nhất thế giới. Theo nghiên cứu của Jonathan Picus của chương trình kinh tế Full Bright, giá sữa ở Việt Nam tùy mặt hàng, nhưng tính tổng quan, giá sữa Việt Nam rơi vào mặt bằng giá chung của khu vực [khảo sát Hongkong, Shanghai, Bangkok, Jakarta, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Ho Chi Minh city].

Tuy các thông tin về giá sữa Việt Nam cao nhất thế giới là không có căn cứ, nhưng các tờ báo đã phản ánh được 1 việc đúng: giá sữa ở Việt Nam cao, và cao hơn cả ở Mỹ và EU. Tại sao? Trước hết, cần phải nói rõ, giá sữa ở Mỹ, EU và Úc thuộc hàng thấp trên thế giới. Vì ở các nước này, sản lượng sữa sản xuất rất lớn, đủ cung cấp cho thị trường nội địa và còn đủ cho xuất khẩu. Ở các nước thuộc khu vực châu Á, do phải nhập khẩu sữa, đồng thời phải bảo vệ ngành sản xuất trong nước, nên đã đánh thuế vào mặt hàng sữa. Cộng thêm chi phí vận chuyển và các chi phí khác, giá sữa ở các nước này chắc chắn cao hơn so với các nước Mỹ, EU và Úc. Tình hình hoàn toàn cũng tương tự ở Việt Nam

Một trong những kết luận của các tờ báo về việc giá sữa Việt Nam quá cao xoay quanh 2 quan điểm chính: do thị trường sữa không có cạnh tranh và do các công ty sữa chi quá nhiều cho quảng cáo, khuyến mãi, chiết khấu.

Thị trường sữa ở Việt Nam không cạnh tranh? Nếu vậy, ai đang độc quyền? Các công ty sữa nước ngoài chăng? Nếu ai từng đi siêu thị hay đi mua sữa sẽ thấy rõ 1 điều: thị trường này đang tràn ngập rất nhiều các mặt hàng khác nhau. Phân khúc sữa bột có không ít hơn 200 nhãn hiệu. Qua đó có thể thấy, người tiêu dùng có rất nhiều lựa chọn, với nhiều nhãn hiệu và giá cả khác nhau. Thị trường như vậy thì không thể gọi là thiếu cạnh tranh được. 1 vấn đề nữa là khác với các thị trường khác trong khu vực, thị trường sữa ở Việt Nam vẫn có chỗ cho công ty nội địa, điển hình và lớn nhất là Vinamilk. Và cũng chính Vinamilk là công ty mạnh nhất thị trường sữa, với 35% toàn bộ thị trường và đặc biệt là 55% thị trường sữa nước. Nếu nói có 1 hãng sữa khống chế thị trường, thì nhiều khả năng nhất chính là Vinamilk, 1 tập đoàn có 1 phần góp vốn của nhà nước.

Tuy vậy, thị trường sữa ở Việt Nam không phải là thị trường cạnh tranh hoàn hảo, do thiếu 1 yếu tố: thông tin không hoàn hảo [Người tham gia thị trường không có đủ thông tin. Người bán thường có nhiều thông tin hơn người mua]. Thật tế, rất ít thị trường của bất cứ mặt hàng và quốc gia nào có thể đáp ứng được điều kiện này. Điều này đã dẫn đến 1 ngành công nghiệp mới: ngành công nghiệp quảng cáo.

Có thể nói, việc cạnh tranh với hàng chục sản phẩm cùng phân khúc thị trường đã buộc các công ty sữa tăng cường cho công tác quảng cáo, khuyến mãi. Nhưng nói vì quảng cáo, khuyến mãi mà khiến giá thành tăng cao là không hiểu về cạnh tranh. Nếu doanh nghiệp tính chi phí quảng cáo vào chi phí sản xuất, đẩy giá thành lên cao thì doanh nghiệp này sẽ mất tính cạnh tranh so với các doanh nghiệp khác. Nên nhớ, thị trường sữa Việt Nam là 1 thị trường cực kì cạnh tranh với rất nhiều nhãn hiệu. Vì thế, điều này là không xảy ra, và nếu có, thì chỉ ở mức độ nhỏ, không quá nghiêm trọng như kết luận của các nhà điều hành.

Nhằm ngăn chặn tình trạng quảng cáo này [trên thực tế là rất tốt. Nếu không tốt thì ngành quảng cáo đã bị dẹp từ lâu rồi], các nhà quản lí áp dụng mức trần 10% doanh thu cho chi tiêu quảng cáo, các nhà quản lí đã thực sự đẩy giá sữa lên cao. Do từ đây, mỗi khi doanh nghiệp quảng cáo quá 10% thì sẽ bị phạt 1 khoản tiền [tùy theo mức độ vi phạm], nên tiền phạt đấy sẽ bị tính vào chi phí sản xuất. Giá thành tăng.

Một trong những giải pháp cho việc thông tin không hoàn hảo trong thị trường đã được các công ty sữa đưa ra chính là tăng giá bán. Điều này đi ngược lại với các lí thuyết kinh tế thông thường, vì giá cao thì cầu phải giảm. Tuy nhiên, do sự phi lí trí của người tiêu dùng, giá cả dần trở thành 1 tín hiệu của doanh nghiệp ra thị trường. “Tiền nào của nấy”. Không chỉ người Việt, đa số người tiêu dùng có quan điểm nếu giá cao thì chứng tỏ mặt hàng này chất lượng hơn, an tâm hơn khi sử dụng. Nhất là đối với các sản phẩm liên quan tới sức khỏe và thế hệ tương lai. Tận dụng điều này, các công ty sữa đã không quá lo lắng khi tăng giá sữa. Điều này cũng bắt  nguồn từ thông tin không hoàn hảo. Nếu người tiêu dùng có đủ thông tin về chất lượng sữa, so sánh được giữa các nhãn hiệu khác nhau, thì họ không cần phải dựa trên tín hiệu từ giá.

Khi bắt bệnh sai, thì các nhà quản lí đưa thuốc sai: vào ngày 12/8/2010, Bộ Tài chính ban hành thông tư 122/2010/TT-BTC về việc đăng kí và quy định giá, có hiệu lực từ 1/10/2010. Việc đăng kí giá sẽ làm tăng thông tin cho chính phủ, nhưng không phải là người tiêu dùng-những người trực tiếp mua hàng. Vì thế phương pháp này sẽ không giúp nhiều trong việc giảm tác động của thông tin bất hoàn hảo. trái lại, tác động xấu của nó là rất lớn. về ngắn hạn, việc đăng kí giá sẽ khiến doanh nghiệp mất thêm 1 khoản chi phí nữa. và chắc chắn, khoảng chi phí này sẽ bị tính vào giá thành. Trung và dài hạn, quy định khó khăn này sẽ làm nản nhà đầu tư, dần dần các nhà sản xuất sẽ rút khỏi Việt Nam. Thị trường từ đang cạnh tranh chuyển dần sang độc quyền. Người chịu thiệt vẫn là người tiêu dùng. Vì thế có thể nói, chính sách này đang để lại những vấn đề cần phải xem xét lại.

Đồng thời, cũng cần lưu ý 1 yếu tố “khách quan”: VND liên tục rất giá đã đẩy mặt hàng sữa nhập khẩu tăng cao lên. Chừng nào Việt Nam chưa thể sản xuất đủ lượng sữa phục vụ nhu cầu trong nước vì lúc đó chúng ta còn phụ thuộc vào nhập khẩu. Về vấn đề làm sao tăng sản lượng sữa, có lẽ sẽ để bài viết khác [vì thật sự cũng không phải chuyên môn của người viết].

Kết lại, giá sữa ở Việt Nam hiện nay cao, nhưng không phải nhất thế giới. Nguyên nhân không đến từ thị trường không cạnh tranh hay quảng cáo quá nhiều, mà là do thông tin bất hoàn hảo, và một phần đến từ chính các chính sách của nhà nước. Để khắc phục tình trạng này, nhà nước cần phải nghiên cứu nghiêm túc hơn nữa để có những chính sách hợp lý hơn. Với người tiêu dùng, hãy tự nâng cao lượng thông tin của bản thân, đừng rơi vào bẫy “phi lí trí” của nhà sản xuất. và hãy nhớ, mua sữa ở siêu thị, vì theo khảo sát, giá bán lẻ ở các cửa hàng nhỏ cao hơn ở siêu thị.

Tháng 5, 2011.

Nhân ngày 1/6 nói chuyện thiếu nhi - sữa.

Kz

Special thanks to Jonathan Pincus và Lê Việt Ánh.

Are you right? Or .... left?

Once upon a time, the world was ruled by just a few powerful people called “King” and “Queen”. That period was called “Feudalism”. However, the system did not function well. There had been many revolutions around the world, but little success. Everybody was waiting for a big change, a new solution and a hero to come and help them. In 1776, the hero appeared. His name was Adam Smith. His ultimate weapon was the legendary sword “The Wealth of Nations”. Many great warriors followed him, such as David Ricardo, JB Say, J.S. Mill, … Together, they put the end to the “Feudalism”, and built a new country: “Capitalism”. Its capital was called “Laissez-Faire”. The founding fathers are now considered as “Classical Economists”. The country developed rapidly and almost dominated the world. But just 150 years later, a disaster came and changed everything. In 1929, the world suffered from the Great Depression. Adam Smith successors failed to predict it and help the world recover. When the traditional “doctors” failed, there came a new one: J.M.Keynes. After rescuing the world, Keynes invaded the “Laissez-Faire” capita and destroyed it. “The End of Laissez-Faire”. However, Keynes was not a Saint. There were many people who didn’t see eye to eye with him. One of them was Hayek, warrior of Liberalism. Since that time, the world was divided into 2 sides: the right and the left. The right represents Classical Economics and Hayek. The left advocates Keynes. Welcome to the greatest battle in economy, the battle between the right and the left.

So, who is the right? And who is the left? To what extent are they different from each other?

The Right: representatives of Liberalism.

The left: Laissez-Faire hit man.

+On market efficicency

The right sees people as largely rational, doing the best they can given the constraints they face. One of their jokes goes:  “An economist walking on the street suddenly found a $100 on the street. After thinking for a while, he continued walking, not taking the money.” Why? Because he believed that everybody was rational. How come there was a $100 on the street? The money must be fake or a trap. Otherwise, someone must have taken it already. One of their members, the Chicago School, is the father of one of the most influential theories used in stock market: Market efficiency. We cannot beat the market. There are no such things as stock experts. In stock market, we can only win if we have information that other ones do not have [asymmetric information]. Otherwise, we are all just lambs of God, betting on our fate and luck.

The left sees people making SYSTEMATIC errors and believe that it is the government role’s to protect people from their own mistakes. The left believes that systematic errors are the root of the so-called “bubble” in economy.  A bubble is somewhat similar to Ponzi Pyramid. When a commodity receives too much attention, a bubble appears. Then when some investors decide to sell out, the bubble bursts. The most common commodity bubble in the economy is in the real estate market [we can witness it in emerging markets such as China, Vietnam, Russia, …]

The right sees competition as a pervasive feature of the economy and market power as typically limited both in magnitude and duration.

The left sees large corporations with substantial degrees of monopoly power that need to be checked by active antitrust policy.

+On market failure: externalities and monopoly

The Right sees externalities as an occasional market failure that calls for government intervention, but sees this as relatively rare exception to the general rule that markets lead to efficient allocations.

The left sees externalities as more pervasive.

+On Government’s role

The right: Warriors of Laissez-faire. The right sees government as a terribly inefficient mechanism for allocating resources, subject to special-interest politics at best and rampant corruption at worst. To them, the government should do … nothing in the economy. Ideally, all they have to do is only about national defense. If government has to intervene, it is just because the economy is suffering from so much externalities and monopoly. [Wait, the idea of completely no government is somewhat like idea of ideal socialism, if I’m not wrong]

The left sees government as the main institution that can counterbalance the effects of the all-too-powerful marketplace.

On budget

The right: there should never be budget deficit.

The left: government should run a budget deficit in crisis. In the period of booming economy, the budget should be surplus. It means more government spending in crisis and less spending when the economy is good.

On solving crisis

The role of government also appears in the way these 2 schools deal with crisis.

What should government do in order to help recover the economy?

The right: generally, nothing. If the crisis results from budget deficit, all the government helps to do is to balance the budget. Otherwise, they should do nothing and pray. Or they can invest more in technology, in order to increase productivity.

The left: tons of things to do. First, run a trade deficit. Second, inject money into the economy. Third: more regulation for the financial sector. Fourth, increase government expenditure. Why? To stimulate the aggregate demand. It is better if the private sector increases the aggregate demand than the government [because of government corrupt]. But in a crisis, hardly anyone wants to spend more [though it is the best way to help the economy. How “rational” we are].  They want to save. Keynes cannot wait till the consumer expectation recovers. So, the government should do it itself. Increasing government expenditure in crisis is not only a way to help raise aggregate demand but also a signal to the market implying “Hey, we will go to great length to clean up this mess”.

There is one last issue that divides the right and the left—perhaps the most important one. That concerns the issue of income distribution. Is the market-based distribution of income fair or unfair, and if unfair, what should the government do about it?

If you side with the Right, you advocate Laissez-Faire. You believe large deadweight losses associated with taxation and, therefore, are worried about the growth of government as a share in the economy. It means you will vote for the candidate in the president election who will cut the tax of the rich, so that resources are allocated more efficiently.

The left sees smaller elasticities of supply and demand and, therefore, is less worried about the distortionary effect of taxes. If you are rich, I suggest you should not side with them because they have tendency to raise tax on you.

Now, I guess you all realize some significant differences between these schools. The right believes that supply curve rules. The left, in contrast, believes that demand plays a more important role than supply does. But which is better? The right or the left?

There is no exact answer for this question. There has been a debate over this for many years. The right introduces us to an ideal world where everything works correctly and human is rational. No one can deny that Laissez-faire together with market mechanism is the best way to allocate resources. On the contrary, the world, to the left, is less perfect. Human is irrational. Human is greedy. One’s luck can be other’s misfortune. So, it is necessary that government intervene, counterbalance the effects of the all-too-powerful marketplace. But too much government intervention often leads to central-planning government, or say, to some extent, part of socialism [though it has never been Keynes’s idea]. These schools are not wrong. They are not completely right, neither. To decide which theory is better, it is important to take the economic conditions into account. It means sometimes the left is right and sometimes the right is right, depending on the economic conditions. The battle between the right and the left in economy will never finish. It is like the battle between religion and science, materialism and idealism, capitalism and socialism. Not until a new theory appears and wipes out all the recent concepts and belief can these battles end. Every coin has 2 sides, and so do theory, concept and belief.

May, 2011.

Kz.

Special thanks to professor Greg Mankiw.

For you.

[If you are wondering what side you are with now, imagine you are facing a problem. If you think of a solution related to the demand side such as increase or decrease demand instead of a solution to raise output, productivity, or say, the supply side, you are a Keynesian. Most of Keynesians belongs to the left.]