Memorandum submitted by Dr Martin Gainsborough
1. Time and existing work prevent me from
making a fuller written submission for which I apologise. However,
I would like to draw your attention to two existing pieces of
work, which I hope can form part of your deliberations on DfID's
programme in Vietnam. Both pieces of work offer my considered
opinion on where Vietnam is at and where it is going—and
hence provide insights into where DfID ought to be working. This
covering note aims to provide some background in respect of these
documents.
2. The first piece of work I would like
to draw to the Committee's attention is a report published by
the Bristol-Vietnam Project linked to the Tenth Communist Party
Congress in Vietnam, which took place in April 2006. Party Congresses
happen every five years in Vietnam. They make changes to the country's
top personnel (the Politburo and Central Committee) and set out
policy direction for the next five years. As well as analysing
the Tenth Congress, the report looks at the outlook for the macroeconomy,
prospects for political change, corruption and the likely impact
of World Trade Organisation membership. The report, which was
read widely by business, embassies and the international donor
community, also includes an executive summary. This report is
important because it offers high quality independent analysis
of Vietnam's present as well as considered judgements about its
future.
3. The second piece of work is a study entitled
"A Comparative Study of Governance Reform Options for Vietnam
To 2020 Drawing on the Lessons from Asia". It was commissioned
on behalf of the Department for International Development (DfID),
the United Nations Development Programme, and the Vietnam Academy
of Social Sciences, in order to provide a forward looking analysis
of emerging challenges in respect of governance. I was the lead
author. The report also includes an executive summary. The report
highlights six areas where it is felt that more work needs to
be done to assist Vietnam realise its developmental goals and
achieve a successful transition. The six areas are:
(i) actively promote the development of civil
society to serve as a "disciplined partner" with the
state in the pursuit of national development goals;
(ii) manage the emergence of a more powerful
business class;
(iii) manage the emergence of a more vocal
labour movement;
(iv) extend and institutionalise the process
of citizen deliberation in respect of public policy;
(v) step up efforts to build social cohesion
across a broad range of fronts; and
(vi) consider ways to increase competition
and widen the franchise for the election of Party and Government
positions.
4. I would suggest that these are key areas
where DfID could usefully apply its resources and channel its
expertise. These are key "strategic" issues which Vietnam
is currently grappling with on the back of rapid economic and
social change. They need to be managed properly if Vietnam is
to continue on a successful developmental path. Without good management,
there is a danger of social unrest and political instability.
In my opinion, these are areas where the Vietnamese government
could usefully benefit from outside experience in terms of different
ways of approaching things as well as insights into what works
and what doesn't work. I also believe these are areas where DfID
can add value offering relatively impartial, non-ideological advice.
I would argue that it is more important that DfID support the
government in this area—where good, well-targeted policy
intervention is relatively rare—than in providing basic
infrastructure, whether that be roads, schools or wells. In a
sense, Vietnam does not need assistance in respect of infrastructure,
or needs it less, or will get it from other agencies. Instead,
introducing the government to new ways of thinking and giving
it the confidence to take that next step in respect of governance
changes—which it often finds unnerving—are areas where
I think DfID could usefully channel its energies.
5. It is worth remembering that the Vietnamese
state is a relatively strong state—somewhat dysfunctional
on day-to-day basis but very capable when things matters. The
government will always choose its own path—which is how
it should be—but it is keen to study other country experience
in order to draw appropriate lessons. Ensuring that the government
is exposed to as wide range of experience as possible, and then
working with it to devise suitably tailored projects to improve
governance, is an area where DfID can potentially provide leadership
and make a real difference.
|
