Vietnam Public Policy Research Institutions and Their Activities

By: Nguyen Dinh Cung
Bui Van
Pham Hong Ha

1. Overview of the System of Public Policy Research Institutions in Vietnam

What are public policy research institutions?

There is no official definition of public policy research institutions (PPRIs) in Vietnam. Based on prevailing science and technology (S&T) legislation, PPRIs can be classified within a broad category of research and development (R&D) institutions. The R&D institutions are organized in various forms such as R&D research institutes, R&D research centers, and laboratories. Depending on missions, organizational structure and operational scope, the R&D institutions can be further classified into:

• National R&D institutions. These institutions are established by the Prime Minister and carry out S&T tasks assigned by the state. They primarily establish the scientific basis for determining nation-wide development goals, strategies, policies and laws.
• Ministerial R&D institutions. These institutions belong to ministries, ministry-level agencies, or governmentattached agencies. They are established or authorized by the Prime Minister and are responsible for implementing S&T tasks relating to development targets in specific areas or sectors.
• Provincial R&D institutions. These institutions are attached to the authorities of provinces or cities under the direct management of the central government. These institutions are established or authorized by the Prime Minister and are responsible for implementing S&T tasks for local socio-economic development.
• Other central R&D institutions. These institutions are established by social and political organizations at the central level and conduct research activities according to the objectives of the founding organizations.
• Grassroots R&D institutions. These institutions are formed by domestic as well as foreign organizations and individuals and implement S&T activities determined by the founding organizations or individuals.

There are currently more than 1,100 R&D institutions in the country, of which 500 are non-governmental institutions and 197 are universities and colleges. Research activities relating to public policy formulation have been conducted primarily by public R&D institutions, particularly the public research institutes, both in natural and social sciences.

The research activities associated with public policy issues can be categorized into three types: (i) basic research providing the scientific basis for public policy; (ii) policy-oriented research directly designing nation-wide or industry-wide development strategies and policies; and (iii) technology-oriented research providing the foundation for or designing strategies, master plans, policies, procedures or standards for specific areas or sectors. Accordingly, in this study PPRIs refer to public research institutes, which have a primary objective to influence public policy. The PPRIs do not include the administrative bodies under government ministries who also engage in research activities for public policy formulation.

What are the roles of different PPRIs in public policy formulation?

The public research institutes have undergone a restructuring process since the early 1990s. A decree by the Prime Minister in 1996 divided public R&D institutions into five groups, as being: (i) part of ministries, ministry-level agencies, and government- attached agencies; (ii) part of state general corporations; (iii) self-financed; (iv) transformed into independent enterprises or parts of enterprises; and (v) subjected to merger or dissolution. Public policy research activities are mainly undertaken by the institutions belonging to the first group, i.e. institutions which are part of ministries, ministry-level agencies, and governmentattached agencies.

Presently, some 100 research institutes exist in Vietnam, most of which fall into the above-mentioned category. Nearly half of these are part of two national academies that have the legal status of government-attached agencies: the Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences (VASS) and the Vietnamese Academy of Science and Technology (VAST). The VASS has 26 institutes for social sciences and humanities, ranging from art to economics. The main function of VASS’s institutes is to conduct studies into basic social issues in order to provide scientific grounds for strategies, planning and policies. The VAST has 18 institutes and some sub-institutions focusing on the full range of natural sciences. The VAST’s institutes are involved in public policy formulation through supplying scientific information on natural resources and conditions in the design of national and local development plans, participating in formulating strategies and policies on S&T development, education and training, protection of natural resources and environment, and participating in reviews of technological contents of key national projects.

In addition, almost all ministries and ministerial-level agencies have established their own research institutes. Within the ministerial structure, the research institutes are the principal bodies for designing development strategies and master plans for the whole industry or for specific sub-industries. Some institutes are also charged with developing the programs to be applied within an industry. A select few of these institutes play an active role in drafting regulatory documents.

In addition, a small number of institutes operating under the authority of provincial governments or other social and political organizations actively participate in public policy formulation.

Based on the degree of involvement in policy formulation, PPRIs can be categorized as: (i) policy-oriented research institutes, which are normally parts of the ministries; (ii) basic social research institutes, which are mainly those under the VASS; (iii) basic natural research institutes, which are mainly those under the VAST; and (iv) applied research institutes, which conduct technology research and, therefore, contribute the technological contents of the policies.

When were PPRIs created?

PPRIs were created mainly in the period from the 1960s to the 1990s. The 1990s saw a particularly strong growth in the number of newly-created PPRIs with 28, most of which were attached to ministries and directly involved in the policy making process. The increase in the number of PPRIs also reflects that many ministries, when faced with economic reform and international integration, lacked the necessary bodies responsible for developing long- and medium-term policies.

See Table 1: Creation periods of PPRIs [ PDF 11KB | 1 page ]

What are the key functions of PPRIs?

Based on the legal documents describing their mandates, the key functions of PPRIs are to:

• prepare documents on sectoral development strategies, master plans, and policies;
• prepare regulatory documents;
• conduct research schemes and projects;
• review proposed projects;
• establish sectoral standards and technical procedures;
• collect, process, and provide information;
• train staff or post-graduates;
• provide consultancy services;
• engage directly in international cooperation;
• manage the research activities of ministries.

The results from our survey indicate that most institutes determine their medium-term research areas or topics as the ones directly related to their functions.

How are the research tasks of PPRIs identified and implemented?

Like many other industries, Vietnam’s public policy research industry is heterogeneous. Considering the ‘micro behavior’ of the participating actors, the industry can be stratified by clients/sponsors and types of products. The clients for the public policy research products are the state, foreign donors, and others. Public policy research activities can be classified into two groups: activities which provide a scientific basis for public policy formulation (state and ministry-level research projects, policy advocacy documents, books, articles); and activities related to the actual design of policies (development strategies, development master plans, policy proposal projects, and regulatory documents). Figure 1 [ PDF 10.5KB | 1 page ] illustrates the segments of the public policy research industry in Vietnam.

The following section describes the four stages in the research process of state-funded studies providing a scientific basis for public policy formation. The four stages are: (1) setting the research tasks; (2) selecting the performing institutions/individuals; (3) monitoring and evaluating research results; and (4) dissemination (see Figure 1 [ PDF 58.4KB | 1 page ]).

Stage 1: Identification of research tasks.

Identifying the right and most promising tasks is essential for successful research. At the highest level, the government approves the nation-wide scientific objectives, activity plan, priorities, tasks, and the list of key state-level scientific programs, which are prepared and submitted by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and the Communist Party’s Central Theory Council (for political science). Based on the Government’s scientific objectives and activity plan, subordinate organizations set their own scientific tasks. The MOST determines state-wide scientific schemes and projects; other ministries and provincial authorities set the ministerial-level scientific schemes and projects; other organizations and individuals determine scientific schemes and projects on the grassroots level.

Vietnam’s S&T legislation requires that state-funded scientific tasks are aligned with the targets of socio-economic development. The state-wide scientific schemes and projects accordingly focus on the goals outlined in the national socio-economic development strategy and plans, while the ministerial-level schemes and projects focus on the development objectives set by ministries or provinces.

Consultation is required for setting scientific tasks and is implemented through consultative and advisory councils. The degree of consultation varies, however. Basically, every organization or individual in Vietnam has the right to propose a scientific project to the S&T authorities and the National Foundation of S&T Development (NAFOSTED) and its subordinate bodies. The S&T authorities are responsible for setting guidelines, organizing wide consultation, and reflecting the appropriate tasks in the five-year and annual scientific plans. In order to prepare the primary list of state-level S&T schemes and projects, the MOST annually organizes for proposals to be collected from a wide range of ministries, provinces, S&T institutions, and individual researchers. This procedure aims to ensure that there is a clear understanding of critical S&T research required for socioeconomic development. This consultation is undertaken in various forms such as workshops, conferences, and questionnaires. The proposing organizations or individuals submit proposals that contain basic information on the S&T project - e.g. title, explanation of needs, objectives, main contents, expected products and results, applicability and research expenditure.

The S&T authorities at all levels of government are required to establish advisory councils for setting S&T tasks. The independence and qualification of members are key criteria for setting up these councils. At the highest level, the National S&T Policy Council advises the Prime Minister on the objectives and focus of the state-level S&T programs. The members of this Council are appointed as individual researchers and not on behalf of their employing organizations. The heads of ministries and provinces are required to convene the advisory councils for identifying the S&T tasks. Half of the members of each council must be representatives of state management authorities, businesses and other related organizations, and half must be suitably qualified researchers. For example, in establishing the state-wide schemes and projects, the MOST forms the advisory councils for each research area. The council analyzes and discusses the proposed state-wide schemes and projects, and votes to choose the most appropriate. The council also prepares the project summaries, which are submitted to the S&T Minister for approval.

Stage 2: Selection of performing institutions or individuals.

The state-funded S&T projects are assigned to organizations or individuals by the relevant S&T authorities or NAFOSTED, either through direct assignment or via a selection process. The direct assignment is only applied in the case that (1) the S&T tasks are classified as state secrets, peculiar to security and defense; (2) the S&T tasks are urgent, with complex and sensitive contents; and (3) only one organization or individual is capable of conducting such a S&T task. The heads of perspective S&T authorities can directly assign the S&T tasks to their units or personnel. The assigned units or individuals are required to prepare and present the research outline to the S&T council. This mode of assignment is largely applied to the ministerial-level and to the grassroot schemes and projects.

For the S&T projects assigned through a selection process, the relevant S&T authorities must announce the planed S&T tasks for the following fiscal year through the media and ensure equal opportunity for all eligible organizations and individuals. The head of the relevant S&T authority makes the final decision on the selection of the organizations or individual, with reference to the consultation of the selection council formed (by the authority head) for the task. Selection results must also be published. To ensure the independence and competence of the process, one third of the selection council members must be representatives of related state agencies and of the industry or business sector which is to use the research results, and of other related agencies. The remaining two thirds should be made up of scientists from the relevant field. These regulations aim to ensure that the S&T task selection process invokes the principles of transparency, equality and democracy. Indeed, this selection process based on application and peer review is applied in the selection of state-wide projects.

Additionally, organizations and individuals can apply for funding or loans from the NAFOSTED, which funds or provides loans only for those projects not covered in the state S&T plan and which have nation-wide, inter-industry and regional impacts.

Stage 3: Research monitoring and evaluation.

The S&T tasks are performed on the basis of contracts. An S&T contract covers issues such as the content being in conformity with the approved outline, intermediate outputs, progress, and dissemination of results and proposals. The contracting authorities are responsible for supervising the performance of S&T tasks, including periodic monitoring. If necessary, they can suspend or amend the performance of the S&T tasks. The contracting authorities also establish the councils responsible for apprasing and recognising the S&T tasks. To ensure the applicability of the S&T tasks, one third of the council members are representatives of state management agencies, related production and business units, and other related organizations. The other two thirds of the council members are individual scientists in the related scientific areas.

Stage 4: Use and dissemination of research results.

The S&T authorities at all levels are responsible for reporting to the competent leading and managing agencies about the results and new findings proposed by performing organizations or individuals. In turn, the competent leading and managing agencies consider the values and effects of the proposals and reply to the proposing organizations or individuals. The research results are kept at the S&T authorities as well as with the performing organizations. The competent leading and managing agencies recognize the results of S&T tasks and make decisions on the content, scope and forms of publication of the research results.

The above-mentioned research performance process aims to ensure the research results are relevant, to strengthen the application of the results, and to introduce competition in research activities. The processes take into account the international common practices in conducting research to a certain extent. However, the actual outcomes produced are not necessarily the desired ones. There are two reasons for this situation. The first is due to the existing regulations themselves. The most common claims are: (1) the lack of robust criteria to identify the S&T tasks and effective mechanisms to ensure that S&T tasks meet the criteria; (2) the lack of regulations clearly distinguishing the responsibilities of S&T authorities at all levels; and (3) that the appraisal criteria for basic research do not follow international standards, while the appraisal criteria for applicable research is not sufficiently focused on the effects on socio-economic development.

Importantly, the reason relates to the implementation process. The lack of coordination of S&T authorities at all levels has resulted in significant overlap between industries, levels, and provinces. In reality, competition has not been widely applied in the selection of performing organizations and individuals. In fact, the selection process is mainly applied for statelevel projects, while direct assignment remains the mode of S&T assignment within the ministries and provinces. This is illustrated in the research performance process. The advisory councils play the key role in ensuring that research activities provide valuable and applicable results. The sound regulations on the research performance process only realize their potential effects if the advisory councils are effective. However, in practice the identification and implementation of the projects are not based sufficiently on the objectives and strategies of the overall socioeconomic development. The advisory councils have do not have the capability of fulfilling this role, largely due to the manner in which the councils are selected. This holds true in particular for the councils appraising S&T projects.

How are the PPRI financed?

The PPRIs are funded from both state and non-state sources. The state funding to the PPRIs comprises the S&T expenditures stated explicitly in central and local annual budgets as well as in state, ministerial or provincial socio-economic development projects. Non-state sources consist of funding from domestic and foreign donors, other organizations or private funds, bank credit, and scientific expenditures in socio-economic development projects that are not funded from the state budget. Before 1990, the funding came exclusively from the state budget and from foreign donors. The survey on 233 S&T establishments by MOST in 1994 indicated that state funding accounted for 57.6% while foreign sources accounted for 10%. A survey conducted by GSO in 2002 on almost all existing S&T institutions, including PPRIs, indicated that state funding accounted for 54% of total funding of S&T institutions, while funding from foreign donors and from the provision of services accounted for 8.5% and 37% respectively.

Funding of PPRIs mainly goes into technology-oriented research, followed by policy-oriented and basic research. The funding levels reflect the fact that technology-oriented research requires greater resources. As can be seen from Table 2 [ PDF 13.8KB | 1 page ], policyoriented and basic research in both the social and natural sciences, are heavily dependent on state funding.

The government has decided that the state budget expenditure on S&T activities should be 2% of total expenditures since 1992. To achieve this target, the state funding for S&T activities has steadily increased between 1992 and 2002. However, with the exception of the year 2000, the share of S&T activities in total expenditures remains below 2%. There is no data of the state funding for the PPRIs available in the published state budget.

Based on the survey data in 2002, PPRIs accounted for 50-60% of state funding to the S&T activities. Furthermore, technology-oriented funding accounted for 61% of total state funding to the PPRIs, with policy-oriented research accounting for 18%, social sciences research 8.6% and natural sciences research 12.4%.

State funding covers infrastructure and current expenditures of PPRIs. The infrastructure funding covers the expense of new construction or expansion of infrastructure and is granted in general on a long-term basis. The current expenditure finances a variety of expenses: personnel and current operation, S&T tasks (state, ministerial, and grassroots levels), basic surveys, S&T information, and international cooperation. The current expenditure accounts for a significant share of 70-80% of total state funding. Among current expenditure, the share of payment to salaries and current operations of institutes account for about 30%. The allocation of state funding has been gradually changed from institutional funding, which covers the expenses of infrastructure and personnel of the institutions without paying attention to the outputs, to project funding, which is based more on the actual outputs.

See Figure 3: S&T expenditure [ PDF 67.9KB | 1 page ]

Most of the current expenditure is allocated to the central bodies (about 74% in 2002). The seven largest recipients of current expenditure account for 68.7% of total S&T expenditure in 2002, as follows: the state-level S&T programs (17.9%), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (13.6%), MOST (12.6%), VAST (10.2%), VASS (5.3%), Ministry of Education and Training (5.0%) and Ministry of Industry (4.2%). As mentioned above, competitive bidding procedures have only been introduced for state-wide schemes and projects, which are managed by the MOST. In quantitative terms, competitive state funding accounts for less than 12.6% of total current expenditure. As a result, the two major state funding sources for PPRIs are the ministries they belong to; and the MOST. In fact, state-funded research projects are almost all implemented by the state bodies rather than non-state bodies and individuals. Competition among the candidate state bodies for state-funded research projects is not strong and, therefore, these institutions are not under high competitive pressure to improve the quality of their research.

Human resources

The number of people working in PPRIs in 2001 was around 16,000, accounting for 0.15% of total employment in the economy. PPRIs use a significant component of the higher-degree workforce of the country - more than 13% of the individuals who hold PhD degrees and 4.1% of the individuals who hold master degrees. Compared with the whole economy, PPRIs have very highly qualified labor-oriented structures with staff holding PhD, master and undergraduate degrees accounting for 10.9%, 7.9% and 52.2% of the total staff body respectively. The averaged number of employees of PPRIs in 2001 was 145, of which 107 were regular staff. For PPRIs in the social sciences, the corresponding figures are 91 and 67.

See Table 3: Human Resources, 2001 [ PDF 10.4KB | 1 page ]

2. Analysis of the Research Environment

2.1. Transitional economy and society

Perhaps the most noteworthy characteristic of the presentday economy and society of Vietnam is the status of transition. Many issues must be examined in the context of the different stages of transition and different historical and cultural situations. Global knowledge in the field of public policy is generally undervalued in Vietnam, as it does not fit, or just as importantly, is perceived to not fit the specific context of the country. The central planning system is less dominant in the economy than other areas of public life, and even less dominant in research systems including public policy research. All the dominant research institutions belong to the Central Government. There are Central Government institutions such as the VASS and the VAST. Each ministry also has its own research institutes, e.g. the Ministry of Planning and Investment, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Most research projects and topics are assigned and funded by the Government.

Some foreign-funded and private research institutions have been established since doi moi began, but their development has been much slower than that of the private business sector. Their roles are not yet officially recognized in policy drafting, policy advocacy, or policy analysis, while almost all of their research projects are carried out jointly or sub-contracted with state owned research institutions. Thus the independence of their voice is still very limited. Some foreign institutions that have an independent voice are operating outside of Vietnam. Their voice is essentially not recognized.

2.2. Unclear and conflicting views and concepts

The transition process of Vietnam is almost unique in comparison with the systems in the Eastern Europe and in China, given the very low level of economic development and the dominant role of the state sector. Many concepts are still in the process of being defined, such as that of the ‘socialist-oriented market economy’, the role of the government, or the role of stateowned enterprises. However, these concepts are critical in determining the direction of public policy. Many conflicting views are under constant debate, also among the highest ranks of government, such as free trade or protectionism, competition or monopoly. Many conflicting views are provided from different advisory groups. For example, members of the National Assembly often criticize that public investment in Vietnam is insufficient, while Vietnam is the second largest destination for financing by the World Bank and many foreign donors are praising Vietnam as the best example of efficient use of ODA in investment.

2.3. Unpredictable and non-guaranteed future

One method of policy research uses past data to predict the future and accordingly advocates a course of future action. However, future directions of economics, politics and technology have become much more difficult to predict; examples include the Asian Financial Crisis in late 1997, the information technology crisis in late 1990s, the war against terror since 2001, the oil crisis in 2005, etc. These developments have rendered traditional research methodologies less useful. The process of Vietnam’s global political and economic integration has naturally led to an increase of the effects of international conditions on the domestic environment and has increased the entailing uncertainty about future developments. Before doi moi, Vietnam was a net importer of food. Now, Vietnam is the second largest global exporter of rice, however rice farmers are among the poorest producer groups in the country. Other major products of Vietnam, such as coffee, fish, crude oil, are also affected by international conditions.

2.4. Imperfect information in terms of availability and reliability

The domestic data, mainly based on domestic statistics, are not always reliable and often do not conform to international standards. One example is the GDP growth rate. This very basic figure is reported differently by the GSO, the World Bank, and the ADB. Another example is the poverty rate of Vietnam, which is reported differently by the World Bank and the GSO through the use of different standards. The recent adjustment of the poverty standard in Vietnam (in June 2005), even though it is not yet fully compatible with the World Bank standard, has changed the country’s poverty rate from 8% to 27%.

The availability of data is also a problem. Several surveys are made each year, which consume a significant amount of resources. However, data is not easily accessible for the research community. Often the agency holding the information does not feel the commitment to share it with others agencies, while on other occasions the level of confidentiality of information is simply not well defined.

2.5. Mixed and conflict interests

Each government ministry has its own system of research institutes and each research organization operates under the discrete agenda and funding of that ministry. As a result, crossministry collaboration in research is rare and inefficient. Sometimes the conflict of interest among different agencies and industries leads to conflict in the views of research institutions. As an example, the Industry Strategy Institute, which belongs to the Ministry of Industry, has proposed a tax reduction for imported cars in 2005. However, this proposal conflicts with the goals and strategies of other ministries such as the Ministry of Transportation.²⁸

2.6. Sense of sensitivity

It must be acknowledged that the political environment of Vietnam has become much more open than before and has allowed analysis of a greater number of issues that were previously considered sensitive. Many politically sensitive views have been openly published, such as the book “The Socialist System” by Janos Kornai, or others. However, among the many research institutes in Vietnam, only a few ‘strong’ institutions such as CIEM, DSI, the Institute of State and Law, etc. are really addressing sensitive issues. These issues include the role of government, the role of the state sector, the direction of socialist-oriented market economy, etc. Most of the institutes belonging to ministries, universities, or local government are still focused on tactical issues and technical details but avoid addressing issues that they perceive as sensitive. These limitations are the result of weak capacity of both leadership as well as researchers in the institutions.

3. Analysis of the Demand Side

3.1. High demand for research activities from the general policy level

The importance of research activities in the policy formulation or decision-making process has been acknowledged in many official documents. The Law on Science and Technology details that the state shall ensure that science and technology shall be a foundation for the formulation and implementation of strategies, master plans, plans, programs, and projects for socio-economic development. The Law on Regulatory Document Procedures has revised provisions to the effect that law or ordinance drafting committee members must include scientists. Furthermore, the Government requires that reviewing science and technology contents is compulsory for investment projects. Therefore, from the general policy perspective, the research activities can contribute to the public policy process at the formulation and implementation stages. The question is why the participation of research institutes in the policy process remains weak. The following sections attempt to answer this question by analyzing the constraints from the demand side.

3.2. Who are the policy stakeholders?

The stakeholders are different in the degree of power or influence and interest they have in relation to the policy. The most powerful stakeholders are those who have the actual responsibility to make the decisions in a specific policy area - ‘policymakers’ -, while others influence policymakers or lead their opinion - ‘opinion leaders’.

In Vietnam, policymakers are members of the party, the national assembly and the government. Senior party members, national assembly members, the prime minister, ministers, local council members, and heads of local governments approve policy documents, while the civil servants and subordinate departments usually prepare the policy documents. As the leaders mainly decide on the general ideas or general policy orientations, the quality of the detail is heavily dependent on the civil servants and departments. In fact, the number of people directly involved in drafting policies is small. This poses a challenge to advocates of public policy research, as the willingness to accept any research results and the ability to understand them is limited to a small group of individuals. Furthermore, policymakers can be guided by their own benefits rather than the public interest, which further limits the influence of public policy research on policy making.

The opinion leaders in Vietnam include the corporate sector, media, trade unions, the Vietnam Fatherland Front, and the international community. These stakeholders are not directly involved in policy formulation, and their policy interests vary. Within the corporate sector, the state-owned enterprises (SOEs), especially the so-called general state corporations, wield strong influence on policymakers for several reasons: (i) SOEs take some social responsibility and are considered as the main tools for state intervention in the economy; (ii) some SOEs are governed by the ministries responsible for formulating policies; (iii) SOEs generally enjoy close relations with the policymakers; and (iv) many public policies are involved in the consultation process preceding the promulgation of policies. The influence of nonstate enterprises, including foreign enterprises, on policymakers has recently been strengthened. The main channel through which the non-state sector influences the policy formulation process is the forums where they can raise questions and give recommendations directly to high-ranking government officials.

Media plays an increasing role in policy formulation. Nowadays many print articles report on the practical aspects of policies and some electronic papers have opened policy fora and debates. The responses of the public to proposed or actual policies through the media have put great pressures on the government to eliminate or amend inappropriate policies.

The foreign community in Vietnam includes (i) foreign donors who wish to provide consultancy to the government; (ii) the business sector, which needs to understand the implications of policies and to predict future policies; and (iii) the international research community with a desire to understand policies and to contribute intellectually to the country. With the increasing financial and technical assistance provided to Vietnam, it is expected that the foreign donors (World Bank, UNDP, ADB and other donors) will have a strong voice in the policy formulation process in Vietnam. This strong position is reflected in the series of regular ‘consultancy group meetings’ between the government and foreign donors to review public policies and donor support.

It is clear from the above analysis that the PPRIs can influence policy formulation either by contacting policymakers directly or by communicating and establishing linkages with strong opinion leaders.

3.3. What do the stakeholders need from the public research activities?

Policy stakeholders recognize the importance of strong PPRIs for the policy-making process. In theory, PPRIs are expected to provide innovative policy options and a sounding board for new approaches. These expectations are reflected in the mandates of the institutes attached to the ministries, as they are involved in the preparation of development strategies and master plans that cover general policy orientations. In addition, few PPRIs are also directly involved in ‘hands on’ policy formulation, e.g. when the government assigns a research institute with a leading role in drafting laws and regulations, such as the case of CIEM’s role in drafting the Enterprise Law.

As the regulatory documents are usually prepared by the departments of the ministries, what do the civil servants in these departments require from the PPRIs? Normally, they expect the PPRIs to provide evidence or materials that support their ideas or objectives. Confrontational input from PPRIs is not always welcomed and this can go so far as policymakers sometimes strongly rejecting research findings that are contrary to their own objectives. However, the general attitude of policymakers towards the research community is that it is too scientific, too academic, with too little practical relevance. Vietnamese policymakers today still rely more on experts in government agencies or on ‘wise men’ they can trust and can control directly, rather than on input from the research community.

The media is also in need of the research results, especially from policy-oriented studies. The interest of the media is reflected in the active participation of journalists at workshops disseminating the research results. The main findings of good research have been quoted frequently in the newspapers. These quoted findings indicate that what the media needs from the PPRIs are: added value, impact, relevance, and a simplified presentation. However, the general demand from society for policy research results is limited because society has an interest in understanding policy implementation rather than the policy-making process and because research results are often too complex to present to the general public.

The foreign community in Vietnam has a relatively high demand for public policy research results. In recent years, more and more foreign-funded research projects have been conducted by the PPRIs. This participation helps to improve the capacity of the PPRIs in conducting research as well as preparing policy advocacy reports. Obviously, high quality and effectiveness are the major requirements from the foreign donors. However, in comparison with research results of foreign institutions, there is a relatively low confidence in the independence of research results from Vietnam, especially from ministry-based research institutions. Since the start of doi moi, foreign donors have contributed expertise and financial resources to public policy research and have also introduced innovative research issues to the government as well as to the Vietnamese research community. As a result, they have become active players on both the demand and the supply side of public policy research.

3.4. Policy-making structures and processes

In addition to the policy stakeholders, the policy-making structures and processes also determine the demand for public policy research. The Law on Procedures for Regulatory Documents of 1996 regulates the process. Accordingly, the preparation of laws, ordinances and decrees includes the following steps:

• review the implementation of the laws; assess the existing regulatory documents relating to the legislation project; survey and assess the current situation of the social relations concerning the main contents of the project;
• study information and materials concerning to the project;
• prepare an outline, edit and correct the project;
• consult the related organizations, institutions, individuals through the appropriate fora, depending on the characteristics of the project;
• prepare the documents to be submitted to the competent bodies;
• prepare, in cooperation with the related organizations, institutions, and individuals, the implementing and guiding documents.

The above process for the preparation of regulatory documents indicates that there is a large field where research activities can contribute. However, such contribution depends on the editorial committee as well as on the capacity of the PPRIs. Frequently claims are made that editorial committees send draft documents far too late for proper consultation or simply to not properly take into account comments and suggestions made by PPRIs.

4. Analysis of the Supply Side

4.1. How do the PPRI influence policy formulation?

This question is answered through an assessment of the channels that the PPRIs use in communicating with the policymakers.

Internal reports via government channels: As mentioned above, almost all PPRIs in Vietnam operate under the authority of various government agencies; therefore, the common way to exert their influence has been through internal reports. They may submit research papers, policy analyses, and recommendations to policymakers on various levels of government. Depending on the position of PPRIs in each specific policy area and within the ministerial structure, they can influence policies by making use of their key positions in the government, by providing expert knowledge in regional or technical matters, or by making use of personal relations with senior government officials.

Conferences and public policy debates: Another important channel for PPRIs to convey their opinions is through conferences. Although these conferences and debates may not necessarily have a direct impact on policymakers, they do carry weight in influencing public opinion. Public policy debates have been recently introduced to public television, but they remain somewhat limited and frank discussions are very rare. Rather, these public debates seem almost to be staged, resulting in a false sense of understanding among the public.

Informal consultations with policymakers: This channel is not strong enough in the Vietnamese context as almost all PPRIs are state agencies, which follow official communication lines.

4.2. What are the main weakness of the PPRI?

Test of the hypothesis 1: the weak connection between research and training.

Until recent years, research institutes have not had any training functions.

• Due to unattractive compensations, researchers do not have an interest in training. Senior researchers participate in training for symbolic purposes only.
• Research results are not used by training institutions.
• The Vietnamese university system contributes only very little research, particularly in the filed of public policy. The Ministry of Science and Technology reports that in the period from 2001 to 2005 research institutions have conducted 66.37% of all research projects, universities have conducted 14.62% and the corporate sector 19.01% of all research projects.
• The university system is overburdened by large numbers of students. Faculty development lags behind the rapidly increasing number of students. For example, some instructors of the University of Technology in Hanoi have to teach up to 3-5 times of the standard workload.²⁹

Test of the hypothesis 2: the weak connection between research and the policy making process.

• Traditionally, all research institutions are classified as scientific institutions. Even research on public policy issues is considered to be a scientific activity, which underscores the general attitude of irrelevance and impracticality of research results.
• The research institutions are unable to provide the type of policy advice the leadership needs to adequately formulate policies.

  At an agricultural research conference in May 2005, the former head of the Institute of Agricultural Economics complained that he had worked with three consecutive Ministers of Agriculture and Rural Development, but the Institute had never been requested to give policy advice to the Ministers. The response from the current Minister, Cao Duc Phat, was that the type of advice that Institute offered was not helpful enough. Instead of providing quick and concise advice whenever needed, the research community always required several months before providing an academic and scientific report of several hundred pages.

• Because the research community often fails to respond to the needs of policymakers, policy advice is often drawn from experts within the ministerial departments, which are, in turn, often influenced by interest groups.

  An example is the advocacy by interest groups from the automotive industry. At a conference in 2003 on the master plan for the automotive industry, a representative of the Ministry of Industry stated that the Ministry was continuously receiving contradictory policy advice and petitions from different groups. For example, a suggestion to tighten the localization regulation of automobile manufacturing was followed by another suggestion to slow down the localization progress. Each recommendation came with its own in-depth analysis of rationales and consequences of the policy.

  In 2005, the international consulting firm WCI dispatched to the Ministry of Industry a free consultancy report of 50 pages on Vietnam’s strategy for the automotive industry after WTO accession, including nine recommendations. Ministry officials clearly put the objectivity of the document in doubt.

Test of the hypothesis 3: the weak connection between research institutions.

• Cooperation between research institutions is not strong, mainly because each institute pursues tasks assigned and funded by its respective ministry. Cooperation with researchers outside of ministries is limited and based on personal relations and individual reputation.
• In some rare cases, cooperation is good if the funding institutions requests specific cooperation to conduct research on cross-cutting issues.

Test of the hypothesis 4: lack of independent analysis. The heads of research institutes, especially those operating under ministries, are appointed by the ministries and have their long-term career paths within the ministries. This affects their capacity for critical and independent analysis, which might go against the agreed policy and the interest of the ministry. The ability to conduct such independent analysis is also affected by the fact that the funding is provided by the ministry itself. Data from 2002 shows that over 50% of all research was financed from ministerial budgets. As every ministry has its own institutes, it is rare that they provide funding to ‘outsiders’.

Test of the hypothesis 5: the brain drain problem has weakened the capacity of research institutions.

It is easy to observe in representative offices of foreign organizations in Vietnam that a significant percentage of local senior officers are drawn from the government system and the research community. In addition, the boom of the private sector in Vietnam during the past decade has also drawn skilled human resources away from state institutions.

In recent years, the Economics Institute in Ho Chi Minh City, for example, has been facing a dilemma: highly skilled senior researchers are assigned a heavy workload from state projects and official duties. They have little time to participate in other activities which often provide better income. As a result, many of them leave the institute. Those with fewer skills and less seniority are more likely to stay in the system, since they have fewer opportunities to move to other jobs with greater challenges and better income.

The VietnamNet online newspapers is currently organizing a forum to discuss if skilled researchers are willing to return to their home institutions after acquiring advance training abroad. Four reasons are quoted for not returning: (1) the unproductive working environment; (2) the difficulty to harmonize new idea with the old community; (3) the inability to have independent voice; and (4) the inadequate level of compensation.³⁰

Test of the hypothesis 6: the type of funding has a strong impact on independence and quality of research.

• As mentioned above, researchers with funding from one ministry often have a limited ability to voice dissenting opinions on current policies of the funding ministry.
• In provincial research institutes, the terms of reference sometimes, implicitly or explicitly, preclude the outcome of the research project.
• In principle, funding from foreign donors should help to create a good level of independent research. However, besides some small research projects, most research projects are conducted in cooperation with government institutions, which affects the level of independence.
• In principle, the funding for a research project will be paid in full if the quality research outcome is satisfactory. In reality, all of the research is always satisfactory. This generates a sense of moral hazard in the community.

Test of the hypothesis 7: research activities are not equally distributed between the north and the south of the country.

The majority of research institutions belong to ministries and other central governmental agencies. As a result, the research community is, to a large extent, based in Hanoi. In the past, limited resources as well as strict control of expenditure in government- funded projects (travel allowance, per diem, etc.) were constraints that discouraged researchers to propose projects in the south of Vietnam.

As a consequence the northern part of the Vietnam has been able to develop a stronger and larger research community. The establishment of linkages between the research community in Hanoi and other provinces in the north helps the research projects in this area to be relatively more convenient and cost efficient.

Links between the research community and contacts in northern provinces are reinforced by school alumni and informal connections. (Universities in Vietnam, even those which nominally have a nationwide scope, remain focused on one particular region. Students in the north tend to apply to universities in the north and then work in Hanoi or other northern provinces. Similar patterns are found in the south of Vietnam.)

Nowadays, even though the cost of travel is less of a constraint, the strong focus on the northern region remains an incentive for the research community in Hanoi to propose research projects in the north.

For example, in the last two decades Binh Duong province has become the best case of economic development in Vietnam. It began as one of the poorest provinces in Vietnam, with virtually no advantages in location, infrastructure, human or natural resources. Very quickly, the province developed an effective combination of foreign and domestic private industry. The industrial output has increased from almost nothing to 58% of provincial GDP. Binh Duong is the first province in Vietnam with an industrial output surpassing 50% of GDP.

The province often receives delegations from other provincial governments. However, a visit of one or two days is normally not sufficient to draw a comprehensive policy lessons from the past twenty years of development of the province. Instead, the visitors often try to find excuses why their provinces fail to follow the example of Binh Duong.

However, the leadership of the province has received little attention from research community, although it would serve as an excellent case to study economic development, investment promotion, industrialization, poverty reduction, job creation, immigration, etc. It would require a properly funded indepth study, in order to gain insight into the province’s success and to derive realistic policy implications and good practices for other provinces. So far, the success of the province still largely remains a mystery to policymakers of other provinces in Vietnam.

Compared to institutes under the central government, provincial research institutes often have stronger influence on the policy formulation process of the local government. One example is the Economics Institute of Ho Chi Minh City. It started off as an office for regional planning and, in 2000, it merged with the Economics Bureau of the city’s Communist Party organization and eventually became a source of unbiased advice for economic and public policy issues for both the local Party structure and People’s Committee. The Institute has the mandate to assist the local policymakers with drafting regulatory documents as well as to provide timely analysis and advice.

Some research organizations have established an effective channel to communicate with policymakers by using brief and practical information. An example is the monthly publication of the Information Center for Agriculture and Rural Development (ICARD) and the Industrial Policy and Strategy Institute (named “Information for the Leadership”).

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study has outlined a broad view of the system of PPRIs in Vietnam. Although the system has been significantly improved since doi moi, many opportunities for further improvement remain. We have found that most of the current constraints relate to the institutional setting rather than to the legal and regulatory framework or the shortage of investment. The following recommendations are presented for discussion:

There is an urgent need to improve the communication between public policy research institutions and policymakers during the process of policy formulation. The initiative for such improvement should come from the side of PPRIs, and the research community needs to be proactive in diversifying the communication channels (Internet, information pamphlets, concise summaries, brief reports, etc.).

The dissemination of research results must be improved. Currently, the dissemination has to follow the Journalism Law, the Publication Law and other laws and regulations, which would allow a wide dissemination. However, the publication of public policy research results is often limited to the research community and does not attract the attention of public as the documents are considered too esoteric and complicated. Most research projects are accompanied by seminars to report and discuss the results, however the quality of seminars is a problem, as the interest of participants is often minimal - and in some cases they even have to get paid to attend the seminar. The quality of discussions is also low, because either participants are not well prepared or do not want to express criticism.

The exchanges between public policy research and training must also be improved. The benefit of such exchange and cooperation is obvious, but cooperation between the two sectors is now mostly limited to informal contacts between individuals. Cooperation should be upgraded to an institutional basis and should become a requirement set by funding institutions for supporting PPRIs.

A ‘center of excellence’ should be set up as a model to pilot the development of modern research institutions. Several characteristics of such a model should be explored, such as: (1) autonomy from any administrative influence or interest of a specific sector; (2) cooperation between research and training to ensure the effective dissemination of research; (3) cooperation between domestic and foreign individuals and research institutions; (4) a high level of compensation in order to attract and retain highly skilled personnel; and (5) high quality research that can improve the influence of the center itself as well as of the research community, domestically and internationally.

In addition, a model network could also benefit the system in many aspects, including: (1) effectively gathering individuals and institutes in order to initiate and conduct research on crosssector issues; (2) gathering and exchanging information, data, and literature in order to effectively target resources; and (3) transferring best practices from one institution to others.

Comment(s)

There are [1] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.

1. Rathindranath Pal
   (posted 23 April 2008 / 08:10:32 PM)
   
   It’s a good initiative and relevance to Viet Nam at this moment as its economy is quickly growing like China and India. Without strengthening the capacity of public policy and research it is difficult for a country to be on right track of development.