Relationship among government export support, perceived export stimuli, barriers and export performance

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed research model.

Table 1. Characteristics of research samples.

Characteristics		Number of respondents	Percentage (%)
Area	North	39	15
	Centre and Highland	62	24
	South	156	61
Firm size (Number of employees)	Below 50	178	69
	From and above 50 to below 100	60	23
	From 100 to below 200	19	8
Export market selected to answer the survey questions	ASEAN	101	39
	Korea	24	10
	Japan	21	8
	China	111	43

Table 2. Evaluation of internal consistency and convergent validity.

Constructs			Internal consistency		Convergent validity
			Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	Outer loading	Average variance extracted (AVE)
GS (Government export support)	IP	Information-related programs	0.966	0.969	0.921	0.662
	EP	Education- and training-related programs			0.906
	TP	Trade mobility–related programs			0.963
	FP	Financial aid–related Programs			0.879
IS (Perceived internal export stimuli)	IS1	Special managerial interest/urge to penetrate X market	0.833	0.877	0.733	0.544
	IS2	Utilization of special managerial talent			0.7
	IS3	Products meet X market demand			0.736
	IS4	Potential for extra sales/profits from exporting to X			0.781
	IS5	Potential for extra growth from exporting to X			0.777
	IS6	Close relationship in business			0.693
ES (Perceived external export stimuli)	ES1	High demand in X market	0.688	0.81	0.636	0.518
	ES2	Stable politics in X market			0.734
	ES4	Close distance to X market			0.702
	ES5	X market culture is similar to Vietnamese culture			0.796
IB (Perceived internal export barriers)	IB1	Lack of experience/knowledge in X market	0.825	0.873	0.849	0.541
	IB2	Inadequate/untrained personnel for exporting			0.782
	IB3	Limited working capital to support exports			0.786
	IB4	Gathering data/information about X market			0.818
	IB6	Lack of trademark			0.623
	IB7	Offering competitive prices in X market			0.492
EB (Perceived external export barriers)	EB1	Lacking of vertical link in agricultural value chain	0.88	0.903	0.64	0.513
	EB3	High domestic production - export costs (raw materials, space rental, electricity, water, gasoline, traffic jams, logistics, storage…)			0.763
	EB4	Informal costs (Corruption) in home country			0.794
	EB5	Lack of efficient home government export assistance/incentives			0.58
	EB6	Unfavorable and changeable home country’s export rules and regulations			0.64
	EB7	Health, safety, quality & technical standards in X market			0.803
	EB8	Stiff competition in X market			0.725
	EB10	The risk of being sued by the customers in X market where applies safeguard measures, anti-dumping tariff			0.771
	EB11	Intellectual property rights protection in foreign markets			0.693
EXP (Export performance)	EXP1	Satisfaction with export sales in 3 recent years	0.759	0.862	0.827	0.676
	EXP2	Satisfaction with export market share in 3 recent years			0.870
	EXP3	Satisfaction with export profit in 3 recent years			0.766

Note. X is the export market in ASEAN + 3.

Table 3. Evaluation of discriminant validity (Fornell – Larcker criteria).

	EB	ES	EXP	GS	IB	IS
EB	0.716
ES	0.338	0.719
EXP	0.24	0.283	0.822
GS	0.252	0.284	0.402	0.813
IB	0.022	−0.315	−0.075	0.062	0.736
IS	0.393	0.534	0.466	0.244	−0.375	0.737

Table 4. Result of hypothesized relationships.

Hypotheses	Relationship	β	Bootstrap	p-value	Conclusion
H1a (+)	GS->IS	0,247***	[0,132; 0,341]	0,000	Accepted
H1b (+)	GS->ES	0,288***	[0,151; 0,399]	0,000	Accepted
H2a (-)	GS->IB	0,196	[0,081; 0,302]	0,001	Rejected
H2b (-)	GS->EB	0,142	[0,022; 0,255]	0,018	Rejected
H3 (+)	GS->EXP	0,297***	[0,164; 0,424]	0,000	Accepted
H4a (+)	IS->EXP	0,419***	[0,286; 0,546]	0,000	Accepted
H4b (+)	ES->EXP	−0,007 ^ns	[-0,137; 0,115]	0,915	Rejected
H5a (-)	IB-> EXP	0,062 ^ns	[-0,069; 0,193]	0,348	Rejected
H5b (-)	EB-> EXP	0,001 ^ns	[-0,122; 0,12]	0,985	Rejected
H6a (-)	IS->IB	−0,314***	[-0,419; −0,177]	0,000	Accepted
H6b (-)	IS->EB	0,28	[0,138; 0,413]	0,000	Rejected
H6c (-)	ES->IB	−0,204**	[-0,325; −0,057]	0,003	Accepted
H6d (-)	ES->EB	0,148	[-0,003; 0,271]	0,033	Accepted

Figure 2. Result of structural model.

Table 5. Result of indirect relationships.

Relationship	β	Bootstrap	p-value
GS -> IS -> EXP	0.104***	[0.058; 0.158]	0.000
GS -> ES -> EXP	−0.002	[-0.043; 0.036]	0.92
GS -> IB -> EXP	0.012	[-0.012; 0.046]	0.388
GS -> EB -> EXP	0	[-0.019; 0.021]	0.987
GS -> IS -> IB	−0.078**	[-0.124; −0.037]	0.001
GS -> IS -> EB	0.069	[0.03; 0.12]	0.003
GS -> ES -> IB	−0.059*	[-0.113; −0.015]	0.021
GS -> ES -> EB	0.043	[0.001; 0.086]	0.044
IS -> IB -> EXP	−0.02	[-0.066; 0.022]	0.383
IS -> EB -> EXP	0	[-0.035; 0.037]	0.986
ES -> IB -> EXP	−0.013	[-0.05; 0.012]	0.398
ES -> EB -> EXP	0	[-0.024; 0.02]	0.987
GS -> IS -> IB -> EXP	−0.005	[-0.018; 0.005]	0.402
GS -> IS -> EB -> EXP	0	[-0.009; 0.01]	0.987
GS -> ES -> IB -> EXP	−0.004	[-0.016; 0.003]	0.432
GS -> ES -> EB -> EXP	0	[-0.007; 0.006]	0.988
GS-> EXP (total indirect effects)	0.106**	[0.043; 0.166]	0.001
IS -> EXP (total indirect effects)	−0.019	[-0.083; 0.036]	0.521
ES -> EXP (total indirect effects)	−0.013	[-0.051; 0.023]	0.5
GS -> IB (total indirect effects)	−0.137**	[-0.203; −0.072]	0.000
GS -> EB (total indirect effects)	0.112	[0.058; 0.168]	0.000