When a grassroots governance model is designed to deliver an exceptional quality of life, an inevitable question emerges: should it remain an open space accessible to all, or will some form of regulation be needed to prevent overload?

This is not simply a matter of urban planning or budget allocation. It is a question of fairness and the long-term sustainability of public policy. If handled poorly, the model’s initial success could generate pressures that ultimately undermine the very standards it seeks to achieve.

From national ambitions to local testing grounds

Through research into the concept of socialist communes and wards at the grassroots level, I have gradually come to believe that many broad national objectives are difficult to measure through the daily experiences of ordinary citizens when they exist only at the strategic level.

One approach worth considering is to transform part of those ambitions into smaller-scale testing environments, where governance quality and quality of life can be observed, adjusted and evaluated in practical terms.

Under this framework, a ward or commune would no longer serve solely as a conventional administrative unit. Instead, it could become a laboratory for experimenting with new approaches to public services, digital transformation, community healthcare, education and urban living.

When objectives are translated into measurable indicators rather than broad slogans, development becomes more tangible and more closely connected to people's everyday lives.

Yet even at the earliest stage of imagining such a model, one challenge - perhaps the most significant challenge of all - becomes immediately apparent.

When quality of life becomes a magnet

If an area offers better schools, more accessible healthcare, a more pleasant environment and a more responsive administration than surrounding communities, it is entirely natural that people will want to move there.

This is not an abnormal phenomenon. It is a deeply human response to the opportunity for a better life.

What must be considered is that population inflows may occur much faster than infrastructure can expand. Once resident numbers exceed the original design capacity, the very advantages that created the area's appeal may begin to erode.

Schools become more crowded. Public services face increasing pressure. Living costs rise. Resident satisfaction gradually changes.

The challenge may not come only from permanent migration. On weekends, people from other provinces and cities could travel to socialist communes or wards simply to walk beneath tree-lined streets, take photographs, enjoy cleaner surroundings or experience a different atmosphere.

Even these seemingly harmless activities could place significant pressure on infrastructure and environmental resources. Crowding, congestion and social tensions could emerge within what was intended to be an ideal living environment.

Further down the line, if no appropriate regulatory mechanisms are introduced, market forces may begin pushing outcomes in the opposite direction of the original social objectives.

Housing prices could rise rapidly. Wealthier households would gain a stronger position in securing access to desirable living environments, while lower-income workers could find themselves pushed further away.

A model designed to reduce disparities could inadvertently create new ones.

Avoid building administrative barriers

Faced with such pressures, the most instinctive response may be to tighten access requirements.

In my view, however, this would be the wrong approach.

A model aimed at improving quality of life cannot sustain itself by creating a sense of exclusion. Equal access to basic public services must remain protected, while policymakers should avoid creating divisions between residents living inside and outside the area.

A more appropriate solution would be to establish transparent policy layers with a clear roadmap.

Fundamental services such as public safety, green spaces, emergency response and essential public amenities should remain broadly accessible. At the same time, authorities could increase staffing, logistics and support resources during holidays, weekends and peak periods to accommodate visitors from other regions.

Meanwhile, policies involving scarce resources or highly specialised services could reasonably be linked to factors such as length of residence, levels of community participation or appropriate contribution mechanisms.

Such an approach is not intended to restrict rights. Rather, it is designed to preserve the system’s long-term ability to function effectively.

Expanding welfare through digital infrastructure

Another important question deserves attention: must every benefit associated with the model be tied to a physical location, or can some be delivered through virtual platforms?

In an era of rapid technological development, many benefits can already extend beyond administrative boundaries.

Electronic health records, remote consultations, digital learning, online public services and knowledge-sharing platforms enable citizens to access valuable services without relocating.

Under this approach, the objective shifts away from managing large numbers of people moving toward a single destination. Instead, the goal becomes bringing high-quality digital services closer to wherever people already live.

This strategy could reduce pressure on pilot locations while simultaneously expanding the model’s broader social impact.

Improving digital infrastructure is also likely to be faster and more cost-effective than upgrading transportation systems or rebuilding physical communities.

Digital platforms could additionally support better visitor management. Citizens wishing to experience the atmosphere and services of socialist communes or wards could receive guidance on suitable times to visit, helping avoid overcrowding and ensuring service quality remains consistent.

Such measures would help preserve the sense of optimism and expectation associated with a well-managed, attractive living environment.

The value of experimentation is not privilege

A socialist commune or ward focused on delivering a high quality of life does not necessarily imply that every aspect of community life should be managed directly by government.

The state can provide infrastructure, establish rules and build technological foundations. But the true vitality of a community comes from its residents.

Environmental stewardship, social support, shared public spaces and neighbourhood order all require active citizen participation.

A successful society is not one where government does everything on behalf of the people. It is one where citizens possess both the trust and the capacity to contribute to the common good.

Ultimately, it is important to understand the true purpose of the socialist commune and ward model.

If a locality receives additional investment to test new approaches, the objective is not to create a permanently privileged enclave.

The value of experimentation lies in identifying what works, what requires adjustment and what can eventually be replicated elsewhere.

Success should not be measured by whether a handful of communes or wards become cleaner, greener or better connected than the rest.

The real measure of success will be whether lessons learned from those pilot communities gradually spread outward, helping more localities become better places to live for their own residents.

Nguyen Phuoc Thang (Hoa Binh University)