Trade liberalisation is frequently advocated as a major potential contributor to economic growth and development. Many developing countries, such as Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Ghana, Uganda, and particularly Vietnam, attained high economic growth and reduced poverty considerably. After transforming a centrally planned economy into an open market economy in 1986, Vietnam attained remarkable achievements in economic growth and the reduction of poverty. Yet the empirical literature on the relationship between trade liberalisation and poverty has been criticised primarily for its inadequate methodology and inconclusiveness (Rodriguez and Rodrik, 2001; Wacziarg and Welch, 2008; Pacheco-Lopez and Thirlwall, 2009; Singh, 2010). The persistence of poverty amongst a considerable proportion of the population in transitional or liberalised developing economies also questions the real effects of trade liberalisation on poverty. Some studies posit that the tradepoverty relationship is largely a case- and country-specific issue (McCulloch, et al., 2001; Berg and Krueger, 2003; Pacheco-Lopez and Thirlwall, 2009; Rodrik, 2010). The potential impacts of trade liberalisation on poverty are enormous and pervasive, but to a large extent, difficult to verify empirically. As cross-country studies are subject to some critical drawbacks, the focus of research has recently shifted to examining the relationship at the microeconomic level. Winters (2002) and Winters, et al. (2004) suggest four main pathways through which trade liberalisation reaches households and thereby affects poverty: economic growth, market distribution, employment, and government revenue. These main channels adequately cover the main stakeholders in a market economy and can be empirically verified.