Page 349 - ISC PROCEEDINGS 21.4

seller verification, and dispute mechanisms become central. Fifth, it is highly scalable,
which means that regulatory gaps can produce large accumulations of low-value parcels,
undeclared revenue, counterfeit goods, or opaque platform practices in a short period.
These characteristics explain why CBEC governance cannot be reduced to
consumer-facing platform rules alone. The quality of the CBEC environment depends on
how well states align platform law, tax administration, customs procedures, digital
identity, payment traceability, and logistics infrastructure. In a border corridor such as
Vietnam–China, where land routes and platform-led trade expansion interact, the
governance question is therefore inseparable from the logistics question.
2.2. Literature review and research gap
Prior literature consistently shows that CBEC can expand market access, reduce
search costs, and create new export channels for firms, especially smaller firms that could
not easily internationalize through traditional distribution systems (Liu, 2023; Nguyen,
Nguyen, & Tran, 2024). Studies also emphasize consumer-side drivers such as
convenience, price comparison, information richness, and platform design, while stressing
the central role of trust, product authenticity, and service reliability in cross-border
purchase intention (Mou et al., 2019; Tran, Tran, Pham, Ly, & Vu, 2023).
A second strand of scholarship focuses on adoption barriers. Logistics uncertainty,
high fulfillment cost, fragmented documentation, and cross-border compliance burdens
remain major constraints, particularly for SMEs (Kim et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2024). In
the Vietnamese context, recent empirical evidence suggests that perceived behavioral
control, organizational readiness, e-commerce knowledge, and government support are
significant determinants of SMEs’ CBEC adoption intention (Nguyen et al., 2024). At the
consumer level, trust in sellers and platform governance remains decisive in Hanoi-based
cross-border shopping behavior (Tran et al., 2023).
However, the literature remains thin on one specific point that is especially relevant
to Vietnam–China relations: how policy asymmetry across a shared land-border corridor
shapes actual market dynamics. Much research discusses platform competition,
consumer intention, or export opportunities in general terms, but fewer studies connect
legal design to border logistics, warehousing models, tax enforcement, and data
interoperability in one comparative framework. The present study addresses that gap by
treating Vietnam–China CBEC as a corridor governance problem rather than as a generic
e-commerce growth story.
2.3. Analytical framework and method
The comparative framework used in this study has four dimensions. The first is
strategic objectives: what each state wants CBEC to accomplish in its broader digital
economy agenda. The second is policy instruments: the legal, fiscal, customs, and
infrastructural tools used to steer CBEC. The third is regulatory depth: the extent to which
governance moves beyond formal registration toward real-time data, traceability, and
enforceable compliance. The fourth is market effects: the observable consequences for
platform behavior, logistics performance, tax neutrality, and SME competitiveness.
Policy asymmetry is present when the two sides operate with different levels of
integration across those four dimensions. An asymmetry is strategically important when it
affects one or more of the following: the speed and cost of fulfillment; the ability of the
state to see and tax transactions; the ability of businesses to prove compliance; and the
resilience of SMEs to sudden platform or policy changes. The method is qualitative
comparative policy analysis based on documentary evidence. Sources include Vietnamese

348