Brian Jeffrey
Rethinking our thought processes is crucial to resolving the key obstacles in our system, particularly in light of our nation’s urgent issues. The three main obstacles identified are institutions, infrastructure, and human resources, with institutional challenges being the most critical.
It is imperative to tackle long-standing limitations to ensure development isn’t stifled, resources aren’t squandered, and growth opportunities aren’t overlooked.
The entire political framework holds this responsibility, but the National Assembly, its associated agencies, and the government carry most of the weight.
These insights were expressed by General Secretary To Lam during the National Assembly’s opening session on October 21. He highlighted the pressing need for concrete solutions to the nation’s challenges.
In light of the current climate, the General Secretary emphasized the necessity for significant reform in legislative operations. He called for an innovative approach to law-making that aligns with state management requirements and unleashes creative potential, ensuring all resources are mobilized for development. He advocated for a shift away from rigid management practices, rejecting the mindset that “if it cannot be managed, it should be banned.”
This comprehensive directive on institutional reform resonates strongly in today’s context and serves as a clear call to action.
I want to reiterate the need for “strategic breakthroughs” to enhance the institutional framework as laid out in the 13th National Party Congress documents. This involves fundamentally improving development institutions, particularly those that support a socialist-oriented market economy, modernizing governance to boost competitiveness, and enhancing the legal system to foster a conducive investment environment across all economic sectors.
Despite this, it seems that these strategic initiatives have not yet effectively translated into laws and policies that facilitate development; in many cases, existing legal structures actually impede economic growth.
The General Secretary’s remarks are in line with the “strategic breakthroughs” outlined, contrasting sharply with recent perspectives that unfairly attribute all inefficiencies to the institutional framework.
Research from the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) has shed light on institutional quality.
The latest report on Business Legal Flow shows a decline in businesses’ ability to predict changes in central regulations from 2013 to 2021. In 2014, 15.75% of businesses reported being able to forecast regulatory changes frequently, but this dropped to 4.55% by 2021.
Additionally, the predictability of law enforcement has also diminished. While 8.27% of businesses could previously anticipate local authorities’ actions regarding central regulations in 2014, this percentage fell to 5.56% by 2020.
Implementation challenges are significant. In 2021, about 31.9% of businesses felt that local departments were not adhering to the guidance of provincial leaders, a figure that increased to 45.2% in 2022. Furthermore, 50.4% reported that district authorities were not following city directives.
Such legal conditions clarify why Vietnamese businesses face growth challenges and hesitate to expand, with only a few companies aiming for international listings or seeking global competition almost 40 years post-economic reform.
This predicament has led the Ministry of Planning and Investment to propose forming a special task force of government leaders and Politburo members to review projects facing obstacles, pinpoint issues, propose initial solutions, and draft a government resolution to guide localities in addressing challenges.
As we look forward to legislative developments, how can we effectively attract private investments in large-scale projects, such as the North-South high-speed railway and urban rail systems in major cities?
Moreover, how can Vietnam draw genuine foreign direct investment in cutting-edge sectors like semiconductors and AI, moving past labor-intensive and resource-draining projects?
These critical questions are central to our efforts towards proactive policymaking and institutional advancement as we aim for a national resurgence.
I found the repeated emphasis on “thinking” and “innovation” in the General Secretary’s speech particularly striking.
This focus on innovative thought is what empowered past generations to initiate the Doi Moi (Renovation) in 1986, transitioning from a single-component economy to a diverse one, a legacy that continues to influence us today.
Clearly, the need for innovative thinking is urgent and pivotal to overcoming our critical institutional challenges and responding effectively to the pressing issues facing our nation.
