Page 348 - ISC PROCEEDINGS 21.4

The Vietnam–China corridor is therefore analytically important for at least three
reasons. First, the two countries share a long land border, dense production linkages, and
highly active trade gateways, making the border corridor unusually sensitive to changes in
customs rules, logistics capacity, and platform governance. Second, the relationship
combines cooperation and competition: Vietnam can benefit from deeper digital trade
integration with China, yet it also faces risks of tax leakage, data asymmetry, logistics
dependence, and competitive displacement in price-sensitive consumer segments. Third,
the corridor reveals how differences in regulatory design translate into market outcomes.
China has developed a highly integrated CBEC ecosystem combining customs digitization,
bonded warehousing, and pilot-zone experimentation; Vietnam, by contrast, has been
improving its legal and fiscal framework but still faces interoperability and enforcement
constraints.
This study addresses that issue through an explicit analytical framework. It defines
policy asymmetry as the structured difference between the two countries’ strategic
objectives, policy instruments, regulatory depth, and market effects, where those
differences create unequal compliance burdens, unequal logistics speeds, and unequal
competitive advantages in the bilateral corridor. Methodologically, the paper uses
comparative policy analysis with documentary evidence, drawing on official laws, decrees,
customs notices, government strategy documents, industry reports, and selected
academic studies. Time-sensitive macro and policy statements are presented as a dated
context snapshot rather than as timeless facts, which responds directly to the reviewer’s
concern about durability and proof-stage verification.
The contribution of the study is threefold. First, it formalizes the four-dimensional
comparative framework that had been implicit in the earlier version of the manuscript.
Second, it narrows the analysis to corridor-critical levers—tax withholding APIs, order–
payment–logistics data standards, near-border warehousing, and single-window
exchange—so that the policy argument is more decision-relevant. Third, it adds a
synthesis table and concise border-gate evidence to make the causal pathway from policy
design to market outcome clearer, especially for Vietnamese SMEs.
2. Conceptual and analytical foundations
2.1. Cross-border e-commerce: concept and key characteristics
CBEC refers to digitally mediated commercial transactions in which the contracting
parties, the customs territory of supply, or the territory of delivery are not the same. In
practical terms, it combines online platform intermediation with international logistics,
customs formalities, payment systems, and after-sales dispute management. The
operational chain therefore extends well beyond online storefronts and includes data
exchange among platforms, sellers, logistics providers, payment intermediaries, and
border authorities (Kim, Dekker, & Heij, 2017; Mou, Ren, Qin, & Kurcz, 2019; United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], 2016).
Compared with domestic e-commerce, CBEC displays at least five characteristics
that matter for governance. First, it is jurisdictionally complex because one transaction
may involve multiple legal regimes for contracts, taxation, consumer rights, data, and
customs. Second, it is logistics-intensive because delivery speed, return management, and
customs clearance materially affect consumer satisfaction and seller competitiveness.
Third, it is data-dependent: order, payment, shipping, and identity data must be captured,
transmitted, and reconciled with much greater precision than in traditional trade. Fourth,
it is trust-sensitive because buyers and sellers rarely meet, so platform reputation, ratings,

347