Brian Jeffrey
The General Secretary, alongside the Party Central Committee, is undertaking significant reforms to streamline the political structure. VietNamNet features a series of expert discussions providing insights and recommendations for these changes.
This is Part 2 of our interview with Associate Professor and Doctor Vo Dai Luoc, the former head of the Institute of World Economics and Politics.
The government is moving forward with plans to consolidate various ministries and departments. What is your perspective on this?
I fully endorse the proposed strategy and its implementation.
Currently, there is a significant overlap in the functions and responsibilities of numerous ministries and departments, leading to confusing and conflicting regulations. With excessive bureaucratic layers, businesses and citizens experience unnecessary complications at multiple levels. Furthermore, the financial burden of sustaining this structure falls on taxpayers—an unsustainable situation.
Thus, merging ministries, such as the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Construction, is a sensible step. Similarly, combining the Ministry of Planning and Investment with the Ministry of Finance is logical since their work is interlinked.
As Vietnam operates under a market economy, it is time to move away from agencies tied to “planning,” which reflects a centralized era. I hope the new entities will adopt names that reflect a forward-thinking approach, such as “Ministry of Development Planning” or “Ministry of Reform and Development.”
While planning is essential, it should not carry the same rigid implications as in our context. Countries like China, South Korea, and Singapore utilize reform commissions that can effectively handle these responsibilities.
Vietnam should shift from mandatory planning to a model that focuses on development planning, tailored to the nation and its regions based on current situations.
Despite embracing a market-based economy, we cling to outdated five-year plans and annual targets that no longer fit the environment.
What should be prioritized concerning personnel during the consolidation of ministries and departments?
The primary concern is to appoint genuinely skilled and knowledgeable individuals to the ministerial positions. Reducing bureaucratic layers will enhance the likelihood of selecting competent technocrats.
Since the Doi Moi reforms, there have been achievements in hiring capable professionals; however, an effective system to attract and employ talent remains elusive.
Why do few high-achieving graduates opt for public service after their studies? Why are many exceptional graduates from abroad hesitant to return home? This stems from a lack of incentives and a working environment that makes civil service appealing.
To ensure that the best candidates are selected for director and deputy director roles at the local level, public and transparent examination processes are essential. The current planning methods encourage lobbying for positions, which ultimately deters talent and fosters corruption.
General Secretary To Lam remarked that “Institutions are the bottleneck of bottlenecks.” What are your thoughts on this statement?
Indeed, we need to overhaul our legislative approach. The National Assembly’s legislative capabilities must be enhanced. As a developing nation, we ought to learn from the legal frameworks of advanced countries, many of which learn from each other’s legal practices.
It is also vital to appoint reform-minded Ministers who can establish effective institutions in line with the market economy.
Do you have concerns about how roles between the state and the market will be divided, especially regarding new ministries’ capabilities to ‘facilitate’ and ‘manage’ economic and social aspects?
The current numerous ministries, coupled with overly extensive legal frameworks, often require businesses or localities to engage with several agencies for project approvals. This results in wasted resources and missed opportunities for development.
With the consolidation of departments, we should anticipate a reduction of at least half of the existing procedures, which would greatly benefit localities, businesses, and citizens while also conserving budgetary resources needed for a large administrative structure.
However, we must focus on eliminating the problematic “approval-granting” mechanism that hinders the private sector’s potential. Despite attempts at reform, the private sector still contributes minimally—around 10% of GDP. While it is recognized as a crucial economic driver, steps to empower this sector are insufficient, leaving it struggling with significant challenges.
What is your take on the decision to disband the State Capital Management Committee?
I believe this decision is appropriate. The management of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has historically encountered various challenges, leading to shifts in strategy—from direct oversight by the Prime Minister to ministry-managed entities, culminating in the creation of a “super committee.”
With the dissolution of this committee, administration of SOEs should revert to specialized ministries.
Moreover, reforming SOEs is essential. The state should relinquish control over non-essential sectors that can be managed effectively by the private sector. For instance, it does not make sense for the state to monopolize rubber plantations if the private sector can handle them more efficiently.
I once inquired with a German expert about how Germany reformed its SOEs post-reunification. He explained that they selected top managers to run enterprises or opted for privatization, yielding remarkable results—SOEs transformed from contributing one unit of revenue to the state budget to a hundred post-reform.
We must clarify the distinction between the “state economy,” which serves as a foundation, and “state-owned enterprises,” which are individual entities. Confusing these concepts obstructs necessary modernization reforms.
Persistent internal challenges, along with less favorable international circumstances, offer a chance to reform our governance systems and dismantle the “approval-granting” framework. To foster resilience and independence, we must unlock the potential for development within our populace.
Part 1: Vietnam’s political adaptation: Attracting talent to lead the way
Part 2: Vietnam must transition to a three-tier governance structure, experts suggest
Part 3: Reducing National Assembly deputies: A measure for efficiency and quality improvement
Part 4: Vietnam’s National Assembly reform: Striking a balance between expertise and efficiency
Part 5: Institutional reform: Laying the groundwork for Vietnam’s growth and prosperity
Part 6: Streamlining Vietnam’s political structure: A crucial step towards modern advancement
