In recent days, whenever meeting acquaintances, it seems the whole country is abuzz with discussions about organizational reform following General Secretary To Lam's passionate and decisive statements on a revolutionary overhaul of the state apparatus and the development of a new political system suited to the current era.

The direction and objectives of this endeavor have become increasingly clear. Ultimately, the focus must shift to tangible actions, starting with the rational restructuring of government ministries.

Institutional frameworks and policies manifest in various forms, ranging from laws and ordinances issued by the National Assembly and its Standing Committee to decrees from the Government and circulars from ministries. What is particularly noteworthy here is that the core content of these frameworks and policies largely originates from the ministries themselves. In essence, ministries are responsible for research, proposals, and drafting.

Of course, for these drafts to become law, they must pass through channels such as the Government, the National Assembly’s committees, and the Standing Committee before reaching the National Assembly. This highlights the critical role of ministries. If ministries are organized logically, it naturally leads to numerous benefits, starting with improved frameworks and policies.

Since 2007, the Government has consistently operated with 22 ministries and ministerial-level agencies. Maintaining the same 22 bodies for 17 years is certainly worth reconsidering. Now is the time to reevaluate this number to ensure it aligns with current needs.

Among the 22 ministries and agencies, six are identified as requiring no immediate changes: the Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of Public Security, the Office of the Government, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, and the State Bank of Vietnam.

Since 2007, the government has consistently maintained 22 ministries and ministerial-level agencies. This structure implies that the remaining 16 ministries and agencies are under consideration for restructuring and consolidation. The goal is to streamline the administrative apparatus, enhancing its efficiency and effectiveness through the principle of multi-sector, multi-field ministries.

Key considerations for restructuring

1. Clearly defining ministry responsibilities: The first step is to continue implementing the principle of multi-sector, multi-field ministries. Without adhering to this principle, reducing the current number of ministries would be impossible. Presently, Vietnam is in the initial phase of this organizational model, which involves grouping related sectors with similar characteristics or interactions into one ministry. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, and the Ministry of Industry and Trade operate under this principle.

To further clarify ministry responsibilities, it is necessary to address the delegation of authority between central and local governments. Potential combinations could include merging transportation and construction, education and science and technology, or finance and planning into single entities. However, implementing such combinations requires thorough discussions and careful preparation.

Globally, many countries have moved to the second phase of this model, driven by the need to consolidate even unrelated sectors into a single administrative unit. Examples include South Korea's Ministry of the Interior and Safety, Germany's Ministry of the Interior and Homeland, Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and the UK's Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

2. Establishing core responsibilities: Defining the core responsibilities of ministries is one of the most challenging aspects of restructuring. Ministries often resist relinquishing existing functions. The key questions are: Should the state - specifically the ministry - continue performing certain tasks? If not, should these tasks be delegated to local governments or handled by society independently? For tasks that remain under ministry jurisdiction, the next question is whether they require direct ministerial oversight or can be managed by subordinate organizations, such as public institutions or enterprises.

For instance, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism oversees the film sector. However, while laws such as the Cinema Law and related decrees assign the ministry responsibility for state management of the industry, they do not mandate direct involvement in public film screenings. Yet, the ministry operates the National Cinema Center, raising questions about its necessity. If public screenings are essential, legal frameworks must support this responsibility. Otherwise, the task should fall outside the ministry’s scope.

3. Structuring ministry organizations: After responsibilities are clearly defined, related functions must be grouped to form the organizational structure. A notable limitation in Vietnam's current system is the omission of "departments" as a basic administrative unit, directly progressing to divisions, bureaus, and general departments. This contrasts with countries like Germany and Japan, where departments are the foundational administrative unit. For example, German federal ministries typically have 8–12 divisions, each encompassing multiple departments, ensuring a streamlined structure.

Another limitation lies in unclear distinctions between the functions of divisions, bureaus, and general departments, leading to an overly complex hierarchy and redundant personnel.

4. Enhancing personnel quality: Restructuring requires a qualitative transformation in the workforce. Officials, civil servants, and public employees must possess the necessary skills and expertise to handle the responsibilities of a reorganized, multi-sector ministry. Without effectively reducing redundant personnel who fail to meet job requirements, restructuring efforts risk becoming futile or even counterproductive.

Restructuring must also account for Vietnam’s evolving socioeconomic context. With rising public awareness and a more defined socialist-oriented market economy, many tasks currently handled by the state can be delegated to society. The state, including ministries, should focus on core functions such as policymaking, regulatory frameworks, guidance, and oversight.

However, effectively reducing staff to remove underperforming personnel remains a significant challenge. Without this step, the benefits of restructuring multi-sector ministries may not materialize, potentially leading to inefficiencies. This underscores the complexity of the task and the need for careful, decisive action.

In conclusion, restructuring ministries and agencies to align with the multi-sector, multi-field principle requires a comprehensive review of responsibilities, organizational structures, and personnel. Addressing these challenges is crucial for building a streamlined and effective administrative apparatus that meets the demands of the new era.

Dr. Dinh Duy Hoa