Some argue the project is too large for anything other than full public investment. But Vu Dinh Anh disagrees. “That logic is flawed,” he said, explaining that a state-funded approach would not only strain the national budget but also jeopardize Vietnam’s credit rating.

He warned that such models have failed in other countries. Bureaucratic inefficiencies, complex procedures, and sluggish disbursement make public investment highly vulnerable to cost overruns and prolonged delays - particularly with a strategic, high-tech infrastructure like this railway.

As for public-private partnerships (PPPs), Anh sees no real advantage. While PPPs may seem like a balanced compromise, they often suffer from unresolved conflicts of interest and lack robust legal mechanisms in Vietnam to mediate these issues.

Critically, under current rules, private partners in a PPP must provide at least 30% of the capital - around $18 billion in this case. “No single enterprise can raise such capital,” he said. Moreover, high-speed rail generates insufficient ticket revenue to offset maintenance costs, which may balloon by billions over time.

To make PPPs attractive, the state would likely have to guarantee returns - effectively assuming the risk anyway. “That just circles back to the state bearing the financial burden,” Anh noted.

Direct investment: Shared responsibility, real incentives

The direct investment model proposed by several Vietnamese firms involves the government loaning up to 80% of project capital at 0% interest for 30 years. The remaining 20% would be private capital.

Importantly, the 80% loan is repayable in full - unlike a public investment model where the state risks unrecoverable expenditure. Anh stressed that this approach encourages private investors to execute quickly, adopt cost-saving technologies, and minimize delays, while the state retains supervisory power without carrying the operational risk.

He cited the recent completion of Vietnam’s new National Exhibition Center as an example of successful private-led development.

Companies like VinSpeed have pledged to complete the rail system in just five years - half the 10-year timeline projected under public plans - and cut the payback period from 140 to 30 years.

“The high-speed railway is not just a transportation project. It’s a foundational infrastructure that could reshape Vietnam’s economic structure for decades,” Anh said.

By choosing this model, Vietnam could build a world-class rail industry without needing to pour in massive public capital.

Concerns over 0% interest?

Some critics have argued that a zero-interest loan is too generous to private firms. Anh countered that it is essential for the project’s financial feasibility. “Private investors already have to cover tens of billions in equipment and operations. With interest on top, the project would be dead on arrival.”

Without this support, the project risks stagnating - either left on paper or dumped entirely on the state, prolonging delays and inflating costs.

Anh concluded that if Vietnam wants to leap ahead in development and industrial transformation, this hybrid model - strong private leadership backed by strategic state lending - is the only viable way to realize the North–South high-speed railway’s immense national potential.

Tam An