Provinces were reorganized. Administrative units were merged. District-level government ceased to exist as a local administrative tier. Thousands of newly formed communes and wards came into being. A three-tier political system and a two-tier local government model officially began operating nationwide.

At the time, public attention focused on new administrative maps, newly named localities and newly established institutions. One year later, however, the most important question is no longer how the system was reorganized.

The more important question is this: How well is the new system functioning?

History shows that organizational restructuring is only the first step in any reform process. What ultimately determines success is the ability of the new system to operate effectively.

In other words, the largest reform is not over. It has merely entered its second phase.

From administrative restructuring to reimagining development space

Viewed narrowly, the recent reform was about streamlining administrative units and simplifying organizational structures. Viewed strategically, however, it represents a fundamental restructuring of national governance.

The ultimate goal was never simply to reduce the number of administrative units or merge institutions. The goal is to create a governance system that is more efficient, closer to citizens, more flexible and more capable of driving development.

Removing an intermediate administrative layer shortens the distance between provinces and grassroots authorities, between government and citizens, and between decisions and implementation. Establishing larger administrative units creates new development spaces, improves the ability to mobilize resources and enables planning on a broader scale.

In that sense, the objective of reform is not to redraw administrative maps but to reshape the nation’s development landscape.

After nearly a year, it is fair to conclude that the reform direction has been correct. The new system is generally operating in a stable manner. Political and administrative continuity has been maintained. Citizens and businesses have continued to access public services without major disruption. Many localities have adapted quickly and begun to leverage the advantages of the new model.

That is an achievement worthy of recognition.

Yet this initial success also highlights another reality: the new structure is only a necessary condition. Operational capacity is the sufficient condition.

The people carrying reform on their shoulders

Behind every new organizational chart, office building and administrative decision are tens of thousands of people working daily to keep the system running.

They include commune and ward Party secretaries, local government chairpersons, officials responsible for land management, justice, finance, culture and social affairs, as well as staff working in one-stop administrative service centers, mass organizations and the Vietnam Fatherland Front.

Ultimately, every policy arrives at their desks.

If the central government formulates strategy and provinces organize implementation, the commune level is where policies are translated into tangible results in citizens’ daily lives.

Over the past year, these officials have effectively carried the reform process on their shoulders.

Previously, communes primarily handled basic administrative management functions. Today, they face a much broader workload. Beyond processing administrative procedures, they are increasingly involved in land administration, construction oversight, public investment, social welfare, digital transformation, administrative reform, business support, complaint resolution and implementation of national target programs.

Put simply, communes are evolving from the “final administrative tier” into the “first strategic implementation tier.”

This represents a profound shift.

In many areas, administrative territories are larger, populations are greater and responsibilities are more extensive, yet staffing levels have not increased proportionately. Many grassroots officials are working at exceptionally high intensity to ensure the new system functions smoothly.

The early success of the reform therefore reflects not only sound policymaking but also the dedication, responsibility and commitment of local officials across the country.

Recognizing that reality is neither a complaint nor an attempt to claim credit. It is simply an acknowledgment of the facts.

And from those facts emerges a crucial lesson: no organizational model is stronger than the people responsible for operating it.

More responsibilities require more support

One of the most important achievements of the reform has been the expansion of decentralization and delegation of authority.

This is the right direction.

No modern nation can be governed effectively if every decision remains concentrated at the top. Local governments must be empowered. Grassroots authorities must be entrusted with greater responsibility.

Yet experience also demonstrates another principle: authority only becomes meaningful when accompanied by the capacity to exercise it effectively.

Today, many communes and wards have been assigned more responsibilities, greater expectations and broader mandates. That is necessary.

However, they must also receive additional resources, data, technology and management tools.

It is unrealistic to expect local officials to shoulder greater responsibilities without providing greater capabilities. Decentralization cannot occur only through resolutions and directives. It must also be reflected in the allocation of resources.

Assigning responsibilities is not enough. Conditions for success must also be created.

If the first stage of reform was about transferring authority, the next stage must focus on strengthening local governments’ ability to absorb and utilize that authority effectively.

That will determine the long-term success of the new model.

The real reform begins now

Over the past year, Vietnam has accomplished a difficult task: reorganizing the governmental apparatus.

The more difficult task now lies ahead - reorganizing the way the system operates.

That means shifting from administrative management to development-oriented governance.

It means moving from decision-making based primarily on experience to decision-making based on data.

It means transitioning from governance defined by administrative boundaries to governance shaped by development spaces.

It means renewing the Party’s leadership methods, strengthening governmental capacity and enhancing the role of the Vietnam Fatherland Front and socio-political organizations in building social consensus.

It also means creating a digital governance system in which data becomes a strategic resource, technology becomes an operational tool and decision-making capacity becomes a source of national competitiveness.

The real reform begins now.

Because the central question is no longer how the apparatus was reorganized.

The more important question is how that apparatus will generate new development capacity for the nation.

Conclusion

The greatest reform is not measured by how many administrative units were merged or how many organizational structures were eliminated.

The greatest reform is ensuring that every grassroots official has sufficient authority, capability, resources and tools to serve citizens more effectively.

When a commune chairperson can resolve public issues more quickly, when a land management officer has access to the data needed to process applications efficiently, when a community representative can better mobilize public participation, and when Party and State policies are translated more rapidly into positive improvements in daily life, the reform will have fulfilled its historic mission.

And when that happens, those carrying the burden of reform today will become the architects of Vietnam’s development capacity tomorrow.

Nguyen Si Dung (Former Vice Chairman of the National Assembly Office)