Public Administration in Vietnam: Structure, Practices,

and Challenges with Implications for the Philippines

I. Abstract

This paper studies Vietnam's public administration system, including its

organizational structure, practices, challenges, and effectiveness. It compares
the governance system of Vietnam to that of the Philippines in terms of
frameworks and practices that can be adapted to improve governance in the
Philippines. Conclusion and recommendations are drawn from this analysis
with actionable insights toward enhancing Philippine public administration.

II. Introduction

The political ideology and centralized nature of Vietnam's governance

explain public administration. A single-party system, the governance structure
remains to maintain unity with the Communist Party of Vietnam. It faces
limitations to increase inclusivity and responsiveness, though. The Philippines
represents an opposite case with a more decentralized and democratic
approach. In this paper, an examination of the Vietnam case shall compare
and contrast the two in hopes of determining what transferable best practices
can be applied for the betterment of Philippine governance.

III. Vietnam’s Public Administration

Organizational Structure (Brief Summary)

In 1945, Vietnam declared independence from French colonialism.

Declaration of independence created the framework of a centralized government
under the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). Public administration in
Vietnam is centralized with the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) as a
leadership force in terms of governance, state activities, and state policies. The
executive has at its helm the Prime Minister, and ministries responsible for
particular sectors such as health, defense, and education. People's Committees
and Councils govern the local level and implement directives and policies at the
local level while being in consonance with the central aim. This is characteristic
of the top-down coordination in Vietnam, which ensures policy consistency.
Vietnam’s Governm

ent Organizational Structure (1945–2024)

The Vietnamese government has since adapted and changed over the
years to meet needs regarding governance and efficiency in its administration.
Several changes were done by the government of Vietnam since 1945, that
resulted in a more organized structure up to the current year 2024 which has
been crafted to create more efficient governance together with the Communist
Party of Vietnam (CPV) who hold political authority.

Government Structure Evolution of Vietnam (1945-2024)

Reduced number of ministries and provincial departments was one of the

action of Vietnamese government from 1945-2011, which aimed to improve
administrative efficiency, reduce of bureaucratic overlap, and centralized
decision making during the early years of independence and time of war.
Fastforward, reforms in the early 21st century led to a shift towards specialized
ministries, which resulted in further consolidation and less bureaucratic
inefficiency.

The Vietnamese government system by 2024 is, therefore streamlined

and modernized, and structured to effectively respond to the country's
economic and political demands. The ministries and departments had been
reduced to the level that best supports the need for expanding the economy;
enhances the quality of the public services, and even meets the international
requirements. However, it also shares some of the historical developments, for
example, double subordination principle where the local government is
accountable to the central governments and also the CPV.

Source:
https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/vn/25528_2_P
AR_GOV_ORG_FINAL.pdf

The following chart summarizes the organizational structure of the Vietnamese

government as of 2024 with the roles in public administration:

Organizational Structure of Vietnam’s Government (2024)

Authorities Role Current Leaders Level

 Central authority,
Communist ensuring that policies Secretary-General: Party (Central
Party of align with Marxist- Nong Duc Manh Government)
Vietnam Leninist principles (since 2001)
and Ho Chi Minh's
thought.
Chairman: Nguyen
Holds legislative and Phu Trong Central
National constitutional power, Vice Chairman: Government
Assembly overseeing Tran Thanh Man (Legislative)
government actions. Members: 498
(various members
of the Assembly)
Accountable to the President: Nguyen Central
President of National Assembly. Minh Triet Government
Vietnam Face of the country Vice President: (Executive)
and represent it. Nguyen Thi Doan
Prime Minister:
Manage the day-to- Nguyen Tan Dung
day operations but First Deputy Central
Prime with approval from Prime Minister: Government
Minister the National Nguyen Sinh Hung (Executive)
Assembly. Deputy Prime
Ministers: Truong
Vinh Trong, Pham
Gia Khiem, Hoang
Trung Hai, Nguyen
Thien Nhan
Oversees legislative Chairman: Nguyen
Standing work between Phu Trong Central
Committee of sessions, ensuring Vice-Chairman: Government
the National continuous policy and Phung Quoc Hien (Legislative)
Assembly legal implementation. Members: 16
Ensures the rule of
Supreme law is upheld through Presiding Judge: Central
People's judicial processes, Truong Hoa Binh Government
Court (Judicial)
 including oversight of
lower courts.
Supervises law
Supreme enforcement agencies Head: Tran Quoc Central
People's and ensures Vuong Government
Procuracy compliance with the (Judicial)
law across all
government sectors.
Government
Executive Implements laws, Office: 1 Hoang Central
Branch manages national Hoa Tham Str., Government
affairs, and ensures Hanoi (Executive)
effective governance Ministers: Various
across all sectors. leaders in each
ministry
Manage specific Ministers: some
sectors such as are Ministry of Central
Ministries defense, finance, Defense, Ministry of Government
education, and Finance, Ministry of (Executive)
health, each ensuring Health, Ministry of
their respective field's Education and
development. Training etc.
Manages local Chairpersons of
Local administrative affairs, People's Local Level
Government ensuring alignment Committees: There (Executive)
with national policies are various in
and local needs. provinces and cities
Politburo
The Politburo and Members: Various Party
Political Central Committee (key members are Structure
Bodies guide state policy and from the (Central
decision-making, Communist Party's Government)
ensuring alignment leadership)
with Party doctrine.
Advise the Head of Vietnam Central
Other government and Fatherland Front: Government
Institutions ensure financial and Tran Thanh Man
 (ex. Vietnam legal transparency, State Audit Office: (Advisory &
Fatherland facilitating national Ho Duc Phoc Oversight)
Front) governance.

Source: Government structure Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in

the United States.
(n.d.). https://vietnamembassyusa.org/vietnam/politics/government-structure

Vietnam has 22 ministries and four agencies with a head minister

responsible to the government and National Assembly. Its local government
runs at provincial, district, and commune levels with a People's Council and
Committee. In it, the three arms include Party, State, and mass organizations.
The Communist Party of Vietnam leads on national policies serves as a boss or
a commander of all. The power of legislation lies with the National Assembly
that elects the President and Prime Minister. Despite these reforms, it is still
unclear in some areas on the definitions of agency responsibility.

Policies, Practices, Issues, Challenges, and Effectiveness of Public

Administration in Vietnam

Vietnam, while achieving significant economic growth and modernization,

faces persistent challenges in its public administration due to deeply
entrenched issues such as corruption, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and
overlapping responsibilities, which undermine the effectiveness of governance,
erode public trust, and hinder the delivery of critical services like healthcare,
education, and infrastructure; policies such as the Blazing Furnace campaign
have aimed to tackle corruption through high-profile arrests and anti-bribery
initiatives, yet selective enforcement raises concerns about genuine reform, as
practices like red tape, bribery, and misuse of public resources remain
widespread, leading to delays, subpar public services, and misallocation of
funds, which exacerbate inequality and reduce administrative efficiency;
despite partnerships with international organizations like the UN and World
Bank to promote transparency and accountability, Vietnam’s public
administration struggles with challenges such as the lack of uniformly applied
laws, deeply ingrained networks of corruption, and limited institutional
capacity, all of which undermine the effectiveness of its governance reforms,
making comprehensive and consistent implementation of anti-corruption
policies, streamlined regulations, and enhanced oversight mechanisms
essential for achieving transparency, equity, and public trust in government
institutions.

It was through the strong reformation of public administration that

Vietnam moved from the worst ranking on the list to among the world's poorest
into becoming one of Asia's fastest-growing economies. Of such a journey
would have to be the Communist Party of Vietnam's 1986 Doi Moi reforms.
This shift from a centrally planned economy to a market-oriented one set the
stage for Vietnam’s economic growth and development, which was initially slow
but gradually accelerated. With per capita GDP rising from $300 in 1986 to
$4,000 today, these reforms have been instrumental in lifting millions out of
poverty. But the growth story is far from simple. Alongside the role of foreign
direct investment, there lies another, more important part - that of the
Vietnamese people and their resilience, and hard work, against communist
policies, which did their job in making Vietnam the place it is today. With an
export-oriented economy, Vietnam has taken on the role of one of the most
important places in global supply chains for multinationals. Impressively, the
country is a leader in poverty reduction efforts and improved living standards
across its people. Indeed, Vietnam has been more aggressive than its
counterparts, especially China and India, despite not recording the same high
economic growth rates. This puts the country's cities and towns, like Hanoi, on
par with or even ahead of many places in other countries in South Asia. At the
same time, the countryside remains somewhat underdeveloped as a place for
60% of the population, catching up only to Thailand. The move towards market
capitalism, especially through policies that promote trade liberalization and
FDI, has allowed Vietnam to exploit its low labor costs by attracting global
brands such as Nike, Adidas, Dell, and Apple, thus enhancing the exports of
the country. As a matter of fact, by 2022, electronics became the leading export
sector, accounting for 40% of Vietnam's total exports, a sharp rise from 14% in
2010.

Despite these achievements, dependency on foreign investment for

development has proven to be difficult for Vietnam. Heavy reliance on FDI and
the low price of labor make the economy vulnerable to external shocks as
global economic conditions change or FDI policies from donor countries are
altered. For instance, the trade tensions between the U.S. and China in 2018,
coupled with pandemic measures in China, led to an influx of investment in
Vietnam, but there is still an underlying concern about the sustainability of
this model. As global manufacturers, including Foxconn and Pegatron, relocate
parts of their production from China to Vietnam, the country’s economy faces
the challenge of transitioning from being a low-cost manufacturing hub to
competing in higher-value, knowledge-based industries. In this regard, the
Vietnamese government needs to invest in skills development and improve
labor productivity, as the current low labor costs that once attracted investors
are rising, and the available workforce is starting to shrink due to demographic
shifts. One significant issue that could affect long-term growth is the
performance of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Despite efforts to reduce the
number of fully state-owned enterprises by over 90% since 2001, SOEs still
make up about one-third of Vietnam’s GDP and continue to face inefficiencies
that hinder their growth and competitiveness. While these companies are
oftentimes viewed as crucial in national economic stability, the fact remains
that they fail to match the private sector, and especially foreign-owned
enterprises, in performance and thus are a bottleneck in growth. In addition,
while foreign companies have become major contributors to Vietnam's export
growth, the country's domestic private sector has been way behind. Vietnam
needs to redress this imbalance by targeted reform of its state-owned sector to
make it more competitive and by fostering a much more inclusive
entrepreneurship ecosystem supporting local businesses. While this startup
ecosystem has potential, it is still much behind the curve compared to similar
Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia, which has managed to attract
much more investments in its tech sector than Vietnam.

Moreover, labor productivity remains a persistent challenge. In 2021,

Vietnam ranked 136th out of 185 countries in terms of labor productivity. This
is partly because Vietnam’s workforce still lags behind in terms of skills and
technological expertise needed for high-value industries. The country has not
yet fully transitioned from agriculture to more productive sectors such as
manufacturing and services. In 2013, when Vietnam’s working-age population
peaked, agriculture still accounted for 18% of the country’s GDP, compared to
only 10% for China at a similar stage. Although productivity in agriculture has
been improving, the country’s reliance on a shrinking labor force in this sector
remains a concern for sustainable growth. Another challenge Vietnam faces is
its aging population, with the median age currently at just 26 years. However,
life expectancy has improved significantly, from 60 years in 1970 to 76 years
today, resulting in a higher proportion of elderly citizens. The population over
60 is expected to rise from 12% today to 21% by 2040. This demographic shift
is a double-edged sword: while it is a sign of improved living standards, it also
presents challenges in terms of healthcare costs, labor force participation, and
the need for social security reforms. The government will need to adjust its
policies to accommodate this demographic transition, particularly as the
country’s fertility rate has dropped from seven children per woman in the
1980s to fewer than two today, partly due to the government’s family planning
policies.

Vietnam’s growing dependence on export-led growth also exposes the

country to vulnerabilities in the global trading environment. As labor costs rise,
the country faces the middle-income trap, a situation where it struggles to
move from being a low-cost economy to a high-value one. Despite its significant
progress, Vietnam is still grappling with challenges in its manufacturing sector.
Although its export and foreign investment figures have increased, the value-
added within the country remains flat. For example, the manufacturing sector’s
contribution to GDP actually declined by 0.37% in 2023 compared to the
previous year. This stagnation is largely due to a fragmented supply chain and
Vietnam’s continued reliance on imported goods for its exports. At the same
time, the government’s economic policies and public administration have
received positive attention from international bodies like the World Bank,
making Vietnam a top choice for multinational companies and investors.
However, corruption, censorship, and human rights violations are still going on
as the autocratic rule of the government continues to limit civil liberties, press
freedom, and religious and ethnic minorities' rights.

This led to many criticisms regarding the style of the government, and
even as economic progress improved the condition of the nation, political
reforms are still one controversy in the list. On foreign policy, Vietnam
managed an approach of fine-tuned balance between the United States and
China by hosting both the visit of Xi Jinping and the visit of Joe Biden in the
past two years. This strategic diplomatic approach has kept Vietnam at a very
crucial level in terms of its collaborations in the political and economic
structure of Asia, potentially gaining tremendous political and economic
benefits. As the government tries to increase its foreign investment and export
activities in the following years, diversifying the economic structure of the
country and reducing dependence on manufacturing exports would be highly
critical. By focusing on those productive, knowledge-based sectors, Vietnam
hopes to push this country to the door of becoming a high-income nation by
2045, but this will occur through solving labor productivity problems and
developing skills and potentially creating domestic entrepreneurship, hence
meeting demographic challenges lurking around the corner. Indeed, Vietnam's
road to sustainable prosperity will entirely depend on the public administration
system as it will address all challenges by strategically reforming to produce
conditions favorable for domestic as well as international business while
engendering inclusive growth along all sectors of the populace.

IV. Comparison of Public Administration in Vietnam and the Philippines

The public administration of Vietnam and the political operations of the

Philippines differ significantly, mainly in their respective historical contexts,
cultural settings, and overtime political developments. This study will assist in
conducting comparative comparison between these two countries in Southeast
Asia in their respective approaches in decentralizing the power to a local
jurisdiction and the types of mechanism employed by such governments in
oversight and regulatory purposes. We're talking about this thing called
decentralization, which basically means giving more power to local
governments. It's like when your school lets the student council make some
decisions instead of the principal calling all the shots.

Government Structure and Practices

Vietnam public administration is conducted within the framework of

centralized, single-party socialism. The Communist Party of Vietnam plays a
preeminent role in formulating policies and in governing. All governmental
sectors are supervised and guided by the Party through its central bodies. The
National Assembly of Vietnam is the supreme legislative institution, but the
authority remains subordinate to the Communist Party. Both the President and
Prime Minister are elected by the National Assembly but are largely influenced
by the Party in forming their function. The government of Vietnam is divided
into 22 ministries and some ministerial-level agencies who have distinct roles
in particular socio-economic sectors. Governance at various levels starts with
provinces but goes down to communes. The People's Council is the deliberative
body of each level of local government, and the People's Committee is the
executive body. Thus, this three-tier system allows decisions from the national
level to be carried out in the country but grants the least amount of local
autonomy.
 On the other hand, the Philippines is operating under a presidential
democracy with distinct separation of powers between the executive, legislative,
and judicial branches. The government is decentralized, and quite a lot of
autonomy was given to the local government units in the country. The Local
Government Code 1991 granted the policy-making power, resource
management, and basic services giving to the LGUs, which decentralizes and
lets the locals participate in decision-making. The Philippines is divided into 17
regions, every region having its own regional government, 81 provinces, and
several thousands of municipalities and barangays (villages), each with elected
leaders. Although national governance still stands strong, local government in
the Philippines has also been granted significant powers regarding decisions
affecting their own locale.

Framework and Practices of the Government (What Can Be Applied to the

Philippines?)

Specific methods Vietnam's centralized system of government may

employ to improve the overall administration in the Philippines Vietnam's
system of governance comprises the highly integrated central system that
guarantees uniformity of the country's national policy in all areas. While the
Deconcentration scheme of the Philippines often makes a wide difference
between what the central government wants from the subunits and vice versa,
many aspects of Vietnam's system could, in an appropriate way, be adapted to
the circumstances of the Philippines.

Initially, the Philippines may benefit from implementing a more organized

and cohesive strategy for aligning national and local policies. In contrast,
Vietnam's robust central government guarantees that ministries, local
authorities, and state-owned enterprises function within a consistent policy
framework. This arrangement fosters clarity and guarantees that national
goals, including those related to economic development, are pursued in a
uniform manner throughout the nation. In the context of the Philippines, local
governmental units tend to focus on initiatives according to their needs and
lead to inconsistencies in providing services and resources. More centralized
policy coordination can still maintain local self-governance but bring national
goals in line with developmental needs in different regions.

Another advantage to the Philippines from the model that Vietnam takes
is by emulating their systems of clear oversight and accountability, especially
at both the national and local levels. Here, the activities of different ministries
and those of local administrations are continually reviewed at the central level
to ascertain if they comply with set goals at the national levels. The Communist
Party guides and oversees governmental activities to ascertain alignment with
its guidance. The Philippines can have stronger mechanisms for national
oversight so that there will be accountability from local government units on
established standards and guidelines, especially about budgeting, service
delivery, and resource management. With greater accountability locally, the
national government will also help moderate uneven developments in the
regions.

Effectiveness and Challenges of Decentralization

Decentrality is found in the country of Vietnam, but it is highly
controlled by the central government; local administrations are tasked to
implement policies that are formulated at national levels, but they have limited
authority to formulate new policies or modify national programs to suit the
needs in their local area. Under this structure, it has helped in standardization
across the country, making the work of the central government easier with
regard to guidance and managing national development. This heightened level
of control, however, means that local authorities often have little leeway to
address specific regional needs, and thus there could be inefficiencies in some
cases. Further, the local governments have a very high dependency on central
funds, which would make their resource distribution not equitable, and they
are restricted to innovate locally. The very centralized system further restricts
the capacity of the local governments to address emergency matters that may
require rapid decision-making localized.
However, the Philippines is one of the most decentralized governance
systems in Southeast Asia where, among other things, LGUs wield a lot of
powers. Decentralization by virtue of the Local Government Code of 1991
bestowed on LGUs a share of powers in all crucial areas such as the
management of resources, policymaking, and provision of services. While
decentralization granted the LGUs enough authority to directly attend to
concerns at the local levels, it also posed large problems. These include
disparities in the capacity of different LGUs. More capable regions have greater
potential for resource management compared with the less capable regions.
Moreover, decentralization sometimes resulted in inefficient use of public funds
and corruption due to the personal or political interests of some local officials
rather than public welfare.
So, what can possibly apply in Philippines? Strong central oversight
characterizing Vietnam's decentralized implementation approach would teach
the Philippines valuable lessons in governance and public administration.
Here are some key elements from Vietnam’s public administration
system that could potentially be applied in the Philippine and be able to
effectively deal with the various challenges facing its own decentralized
framework - especially on consistency, equity, and accountability;
1. Stronger Coordination Between National and Local Governments
The national government in Vietnam ensures national policies are
implemented uniformly nationwide through proactive coordination and
monitoring by central authorities. In this way, fragmentation does not
occur, and all activities of local governments come into harmony with the
country's greater development goals. The Philippines will benefit from
frameworks of better coordination that bring national and local
governments together to heighten alignment and implementation of
fundamental national programs. For example, the reduction of poverty or
improving health care could be uniformly implemented in all regions by
having regular dialogues and exchanging best practices among national
and local officials.

2. Decentralized Budgeting and Revenue Generation:

Vietnam's local governments have a system where local governments do
not only handle their budgets but instead also carry out revenue
generation through taxes, fees, and different new forms while they are
still getting financial aids from the central government which come as a
lump sum. The national government's transfer-offs of financial resources
from real central financial resources help the local government to be
satisfied with its wants of inputs in an undependent way especially
without the funding of a national capacity. The Philippines indeed needs
it to come up with a similar model by elevating its local government units
who have the power to pick to directly own local finance through taxes or
their own procedures, thus LGUs will obtain more money from the local
transactions and be able to have a relatively higher income for the critical
sectoral local development projects and ultimately not face the problems
arising from delays and the refusal of citizen participation.

Even though the Philippine local government units (LGUs) are already
given the power to create their own funds by collecting the local taxes,
this system is nonetheless still heavily reliant on the central government
fiscal transfers like the IRA. There are cases when these transfers are
delayed, or not enough, which is why greater fiscal autonomy at the local
level is required. The focus of the submission is to further strengthen
LGUs by giving them more tools and resources for revenue generation
 that are directly related to their economic situation. This means that
local governments can collect more funding by taking advantage of the
local businesses, industries, and resources they have. Unlike the
situation now, where the main source of funds for local governments is
IRA, they will be able to look for other financial sources. This
development will not only give LGUs more financial independence but
also more capacity to support much-needed local development projects.

3. Delegating Economic Functions to Local Governments

The Vietnamese local authorities have been very successful in supporting
economic growth by attracting investment and running local economic
projects. The Philippines can duplicate this method by strengthening
LGUs to strive for resource mobilization and undertake economic
enterprises that meet the needs of the particular place such as
agribusiness, tour and travel, and technological devices as well as an
alternative. Through the redesign of decentralization, the areas will
mainly concentrate on building up their own sectors, which would lead
to a reduction of the national demand of a few sectors and may even
allow other sectors to appear or expand.

4. Strengthening the Role of LGUs in Policy Implementation

Localities that are in Vietnam are supported by the national government
in the translation of regulations to the local level, taking into account
specific situations. Consequently, policies become more precise because
of a complementary relationship developed. The Philippines can amplify
the role of LGUs in policy implementation by imparting them with the
main responsibility of setting up the new mechanism of doing the job
efficiently and also planning and executing the national legislature and
policies. The reformation of such policies to the regional standards would
bring about better program implementation.

5. Strengthening Local Government Units' Role in Policy

Implementation
In Vietnam, the local administration usually adapts national policies to
the local circumstances. Policy makers at the local level can thus ensure
the proper relevance of the policies to the targeted area. To better
perform the policy function, LGUs in the Philippines can implement
 projects through direct cooperation with the national government and the
passage of local ordinances. Through the adaption of these policies
through the local context, the Philippines can ascertain the practical
application of the national goals in the fields of poverty elimination,
infrastructure development, and public health.

6. Developing Local Governance Capacities

Vietnam lays strong emphasis on the capability building of local
government officials by providing the main administrative and financial
management training programs. This practice indeed helps down-most
institutional leaders to implement decentralization successfully. The
Philippines should adopt best practices from Vietnam with the training of
LGU officials involved in policy implementation which sometimes lack the
full autonomy and capacity to make national policies fully applicable to
their communities. By increasing LGU involvement in policy design, they
can adapt policies to better meet local challenges. In Vietnam, this is
achieved through the decentralization of decision-making processes and
responsibility. The suggestion is to ensure that LGUs can work as active
collaborators with the national government to design policies that are
relevant to their unique needs and enhance local governance capacity.
The latter should be inclusive training programs in governance,
budgeting, and project management. This, in turn, will ensure exemplary
performance of the local leaders who are to take on more local
government roles in a decentralized system, hence, better public
administration and service delivery.

7. Promotion of Shared Regional Cooperation and Accountability

Despite the formal centralization of the system, local governments in
Vietnam are encouraged to collaborate and function according to the
platform of the Communist Party. The Philippines would be in the
position to gain from the inclusion of greater local cooperation,
establishing conversation platforms and devising a structure for the
inter-LGU involvement. This could be used to share resources, to solve
common challenges, and for increased transparency and accountability.
By having good regional connections, it is possible to fight corruption
and build a structure that is not one-sided but will encompass the needs
of all areas.
 Philippines could significantly benefit from applying Vietnam's
decentralization approach towards the amelioration of national governance to
overcome issues such as inefficiency in resource utilization, subnational
government autonomy, and regional imbalances. A closer partnership between
the central government and local governments may further standardize
implementation nationwide to have the necessary support in implementing key
programs and activities on poverty alleviation and improvement in healthcare
at the regional and community levels. Regular communication, shared
knowledge platforms, and barrier-free processes that facilitate alignment
between layers of government will help achieve this. Vietnam's decentralized
budgeting and revenue generation system gives local governments the
authority to generate income through taxes and fees while still benefiting from
central government support. This actually can be emulated in the Philippines if
we lean toward allowing LGUs to harness local resources and industries, while
avoiding delays in funding and limiting the reliance on Internal Revenue
Allotments (IRA). More fiscal autonomy for LGUs can provide them with the
capacity to invest in more important projects that will improve the services they
provide to their constituents.

The Vietnamese experience is quite an eye-opener on how the LGUs can

create an impetus for economic growth through the delegation of economic
functions with specific economic programs directed at local economic
development. For example, in the Philippines, this can empower LGUs to
attract Blue-Chip investments as well as back certain subsectors, such as
agriculture, tourism, and technology, which are expected to become local
economic clusters. With a reform considering new decentralization, the
different arms of LGUs should devote its resources based on their strength,
easing up the burden to the national government and enabling a culture of
innovation as well as healthy competition within the regions. Besides this, the
Philippines could add to the key national policies further delegation to LGUs on
adapting national policies to local contexts and, therefore, power over their
implementation. This will ensure that programs are always current and
address the different needs of each community. Adapted to the local context,
capacity-building programs like Vietnam's may also be achieved to ensure local
leaders are adequately equipped and have the right tools and skills to manage
resources, implement policies, and catalyze local development on time. Lastly,
promoting regional collaboration among LGUs may spur resource sharing,
transparency, and accountability. For inter-LGU collaboration to use common
challenges in development as a launchpad, a platform for inter-LGU
collaboration must first be established to address these challenges with a
united front against corruption and towards development.

V. Conclusion

Overall, public administrations of Vietnam and Philippines are two totally

different models; one is regarding the advantages as well as a disadvantage
that both offer in terms of government. Through its centralized system,
Vietnam encourages more coordination as well as policy uniformity which
allows national directives to be carried out across all regions. The centralized
structure can easily lead to rapid decision-making on matters of national
importance and leaves a clear route to the progress of the country. This
system, however, has the tendency to distance itself from local realities and to
concentrate power in the hands of a few, thus reducing regional autonomy and
sometimes regional innovation. That is bad.

On the other hand, in the Philippines, the decentralized form of

governance has more power over local decision-making authority, thus having
more power to control local decisions at the regional level. Such a system is
beneficial as it allows local officials to handle problems within their
constituency. However, it tends to fragment local interests with national goals
and, hence, is not efficient, leading to regional imbalances. The Philippines
needs to increase coordination between national and local governments in
order to attain better implementation, resource allocation, and long-term
development.

This is a challenge to the country. Some things that can be learned from
Vietnam's centralized governance approach include, No fiscal autonomy for
local governments, Division between national and regional authorities or a
disjointed approach to development. This approach in combination with other
approaches could yield more efficient and effective governance toward equitable
growth within the entire country, observing the varying needs of the different
regions. It may help the Philippines learn from its systems to achieve
governance and attain sustainable development as well as national unity.
References;

➢ United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Public Administration

Reform: Government Organization in Vietnam. Retrieved from
https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/vn/255
28_2_PAR_GOV_ORG_FINAL.pdf
➢ Government structure Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
in the United States.
(n.d.). https://vietnamembassyusa.org/vietnam/politics/government-
structure
➢ Decentralization in the Philippines: An Overview (1987). Philippine
Journal of Public Administration. Philippine Social Science Council.
Available at: https://pssc.org.ph/wp-content/pssc-
archives/Philippine%20Journal%20of%20Public%20Administration/198
7/Num%202/05_Decentralization%20in%20the%20Philippines_An%20O
verview.pdf
➢ Kasarinlan Journal. Decentralization in the Philippines: A Critical
Review. Retrieved from;
https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/kasarinlan/article/download/8
49/841
➢ Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). (n.d.).
Decentralisation in Vietnam. Retrieved from
https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/decentralisation_vietnam.pd
f
➢ Anh, V. T. T. (2016). Vietnam: Decentralization Amidst
Fragmentation. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 33(2), 188–208.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44132301