General Secretary To Lam and the Party Central Committee have resolutely pursued a revolution to streamline the political apparatus. VietNamNet presents a series of expert discussions suggesting solutions for this revolution.

VietNamNet continues with Part two of the discussion with Dr. Nguyen Si Dung, Former Vice Chair of the National Assembly Office.

Part 1: Vietnam’s political streamlining: Attracting talent to lead the way
 

Recently, the Central Committee proposed learning from international experiences in streamlining the apparatus. As someone with in-depth research on institutions, can you briefly explain the global models?

Nguyen Si Dung: Globally, there are four basic models.

The first is the dual supervision model, widely adopted in countries like France and Thailand.

This model centralizes significant authority at the national level. The Ministry of Interior oversees local governments' administrative functions, while specialized ministries supervise technical operations.

This model dates back to the Roman Empire, which, instead of dismantling local governance structures, appointed representatives to manage them. A part of this model existed in Vietnam before 1945, when French representatives governed the Northern, Central, and Southern regions.

The second is the regulatory model, where legal frameworks delineate powers between central and local governments. This model is found in the UK and countries influenced by the Anglo-American tradition.

For instance, in Belgium, economic authority is allocated to three regions, cultural authority to three communities, and issues like diplomacy and defense remain under central authority. This division ensures the central government does not require an extensive apparatus to manage economic matters.

Similarly, in the US, federal and state governments have distinct powers. States maintain their apparatus to exercise their powers, while the central government does not duplicate these functions. For example, former President Donald Trump considered abolishing the Federal Department of Education because education is predominantly a state matter.

The US operates with three levels of government: federal, state, and local (city, town). This system keeps the central government relatively small, with only 15 departments.

The third is the subsidiarity model, which delegates tasks to the lowest capable level, reserving only what cannot be handled locally for higher authorities. This model, rooted in Germany and Europe, reflects a historical and political philosophy of unification among Germanic states for common interests without fully relinquishing autonomy.

Japan adopts this model, with only 13 central ministries since most responsibilities are delegated to prefectures. The central government only intervenes in tasks beyond the prefectures’ capabilities. Consequently, central staffing is minimal due to this decentralization.

From my research across dozens of countries, approximately 80% have three tiers of government, 15% have two, and only 5% have four. Vietnam falls into this rare category.

Anh Si Dung.jpg
Dr. Nguyen Si Dung advocates for a streamlined three-tier governance model for Vietnam. Photo: Le Anh Dung

What is Vietnam's organizational model?

Nguyen Si Dung: Vietnam follows a dual subordination model, the fourth global model. This system, typical of former socialist countries, has been in place since the 1960 Constitution.

China also adopted this model but has significantly reformed it. While retaining centralized political authority, they have strongly decentralized economic powers to local governments, enabling rapid reform and development.

Vietnam's 2013 Constitution laid the legal groundwork for greater decentralization, but this has not been effectively implemented in the Law on Local Government Organization.

How does Vietnam’s dual subordination model manifest?

Nguyen Si Dung: Vietnam's dual subordination creates a vertically and horizontally extensive apparatus. For instance, provincial departments report to both ministries and local People's Committees, making downsizing difficult.

Moreover, having four levels of government further enlarges the apparatus compared to other countries. Recent reforms have aimed to reduce levels in urban areas, such as Da Nang and Ho Chi Minh City, which primarily operate with two levels (central and city). Hanoi operates with three levels (central, city, and district).

However, these changes primarily eliminate councils, while other systems remain intact.

Additionally, laws are designed in ways that expand the apparatus. For instance, a public investment project must pass through all levels, including the Department of Planning and Investment, relevant departments, People's Committees, People's Councils, the Ministry of Planning and Investment, and finally the Government.

cong trinh 474.jpg
Vietnam’s overlapping governance layers have created inefficiencies, sparking calls for reform. Photo: Hoang Giam

When redesigning the apparatus, what should be considered?

Nguyen Si Dung: We should adopt a three-tier government model, the global standard. The 1946 Constitution envisioned three tiers of government and five administrative levels, but this was never implemented, leaving us without practical lessons.

Theoretically, the dual subordination model makes it difficult to streamline the apparatus. However, its cumbersome and overlapping responsibilities can lead to inefficiency, waste, and developmental delays.

Resolution 18, issued on October 25, 2017, called for streamlining. General Secretary To Lam has resolutely pursued this with a strong reformist vision.

While much remains to be done - such as revising laws and reevaluating models - initial efforts to streamline must ensure stability, continuity, and alignment with current practical needs, enhancing state management efficiency to meet new challenges.

General Secretary To Lam has called for abandoning the "if you can't manage, prohibit" mindset. How will this impact streamlining the apparatus?

Nguyen Si Dung: Abandoning the "if you can't manage, prohibit" mindset signifies a major reform, shifting from restrictive management to facilitation and support.

This mindset leads to excessive government intervention, overlapping regulations, and complex oversight mechanisms, necessitating a bloated apparatus.

Shifting to facilitation will reduce unnecessary regulations, lower administrative workloads, and minimize personnel requirements.

When the state assumes or controls all tasks, it must expand to handle duties that society or markets could manage. Prohibition-focused management creates complex procedures requiring multiple intermediary levels and agencies. Simplifying regulations and focusing on substantive oversight will eliminate redundant intermediaries, contributing to streamlining.

A cumbersome apparatus driven by prohibition stifles innovation, creativity, and efficiency in public operations. Flexible, supportive management encourages proactive solutions while reducing stagnation.

However, changing entrenched prohibition practices takes time and training. As regulations and the apparatus are reduced, mechanisms for transparency and accountability must be strengthened to prevent abuse or oversight gaps.

Tu Giang - Lan Anh