Re-working the local government planning process in vietnam: A critical review based on empirical research

RE-WORKING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PLANNING PROCESS IN VIETNAM: A CRITICAL REVIEW BASED

ON EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vu Thi Tuyet Mai

Email: maivu@neu.edu.vn

Faculty of Development and Planning

National Economics University, Ha noi, Vietnam

Abstract

Planning has been applied in the private sector and adopted in the public

sector as it is boosted by administration reform programs in the 1990s in order to

improve efficiency and effectiveness. However, it seems that the planning process in

local government is often viewed as a top-down, linear, closed and, alienating

approach. This results in static and dormant plan, disintegration and lack of

coordination across government organizations, and inflexibility when developing a

framework, strategy and vision for the local government. Thus, this research article

proposes that a more participatory approach based on two –way communication and

consideration of many domains of knowledge be considered to support systemic

governance and participation in planning and decision making in local government.

Keywords: Local government, Planning, Subsidiarity, Systemic governance,

Governance

1. Introduction

Vietnam followed the central planning model from the U.S.S.R. The central

planning approach has been an ideology for the unitary state of Vietnam in the last

few decades where the resource allocation was decided by the central authorities

according to administrative plans. Originally, the plan was considered as a

constitution for North Vietnam and for the whole country after unification (1975).

The whole country followed the plan strictly in terms of what needed to be produced,

and where and how many products were produced, etc.

However, problems with such planning accumulated and countries have been

moving to the other approaches to meet the demand of changes. In Vietnam, since

the country used to be a planned economy and most of the economic activities were

under center’s control in the plan period, this has led to economic inefficiency and

low quality of life. In 1985, the earliest year for which comparable economic data are

available, Vietnam stated that it had a very low economy, with a GDP at 4.2 percent

273

and low life expectancy at birth of 65 years (World Bank estimates based on Vietnam

Living Standard Survey (VLSS) 1993). Paralleling the international trends, Vietnam

has been implementing the reforms in the development discourse regarding

governance, management and citizen participation to enhance the development of the

country, particularly in local government.

The renovation (Doi Moi) initiated since the late 1980s can be viewed as a

process of adapting its institutions to the changing needs of a socialist-oriented market

economy. As a result, the government has implemented the public reform programs

in which the reformative approaches have been applied to the national planning

system. In an era of globalization and entering the World Trade Organization,

Vietnamese people requires ever more versatile policies, strategies and management

methods to have sound visions and actions. For doing so, the government has been

implementing the reforms in planning system. The reform of planning system is also

a campaign to achieve Vietnam Millennium Goals (VDGs) and Vietnam’s

international commitments. It is also a means of the government to enhance

democracy and participation of citizens and then to provide a better quality of life.

Vietnamese government has put in place the legal framework for the reform of

planning process in 2004. Prompted by episodes of the international donors, the Prime

Minister issued a planning decree ‘phap lenh ke hoach’ and a directive No

33/2004/CT-TTg on the preparation of the five-year Socio-Economic Development

Plan (2006-2010). The socio-economic development planning is considered as a

crucial framework for eliminating and erasing poverty in Vietnam as set up in the

Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS-Chien luoc tang

truong toan dien ve xoa doi giam ngheo).

During this reform periods, the GDP growth has been increasing during recent

years about 8 percent per year during 1990-2005 (Vietnam Statistical Yearbook

2005). The social indicators such as poverty reduction have been improved.

However, there are still some considerable issues questioning whether these

developments are sustainable or not when (1) the government balance sheet and

domestic public sector debt indicators are still of concern (Vietnam National

Assembly, 2006); (2) the gap between the rich and the poor is larger (Vietnam

Statistical YearBook, 2005); and (3) the voice and accountability to community in

governance is still low (World Bank, 2006). These are great challenges to national

and local authorities to look at their programs again, particularly the socio-economic

development planning process.

These challenges and problems have been indicated that the change toward

‘good government’ have not been completed. The operation of the current planning

model still shows the legacies of a centrally planned economy. There are increasing

274

concerns from the national and local authorities to look at again their reforms

programs to fit appropriately to the new demanding situation. So the 5-year socio-

economic development planning that has been considered as the secondly important

decree of the Party would be one of the sources for the government to address the

above challenges. It has taken a dominant position as the public sector represents

the dominant investment sources. It prioritizes all of the proposals contained in the

sector plans prepared by sectoral ministries, departments or agencies. Therefore

examination of the planning system needs to be taken before taking further reforms

to know how it is and whether there are challenges and problems in the system itself.

2. Method

This research was preceded by consistent and rigorous collection and analysis

of data using intensive qualitative case study methodology. The main data gathering

tools were key informant interviews, focus groups discussions, participation

observation, documentation and my own experiences as researcher, which were

related to the research subject and developed through the World Bank and ADB

related projects in Vietnam. The study used both purposive sampling and snowball

sampling to collect data. This combination can be possible to provide the broadest

range of information. The more information that can be obtained, the better the

chance of a complete picture of the cases being studied. Selection of interviewees

began with a purposive sample of individuals known to be expertise and practices in

planning and/or to be in positions of particular influence within the local government.

Sixteen interviewees from across different organizations/departments and

government levels including central government, provincial government, three

district-level governments, commune governments, donors and expert consultants

were interviewed. Interviewees were either the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (or

equivalent), Mayors and elected members or department managers and senior service

officers in the organizations.

In this study, transcripts of interviews and focus groups, notes of observations

and direct experiences and documents (plans, decrees, guidelines, instructions,

websites, journals, and other public documents produced and provided by the

organizations involved) were analysed. These were managed and analysed by using

computers, particularly software package Nvivo.

3. Results

This research contributes to the literatures (Ingle and Halimi 2007; UNDP

2006; World Bank, 2005) about the positive progress of the Vietnamese government

on strengthening the local democracy and public involvement in terms of policies and

regulations in other words in the theory; but still existing institutional barriers to

275

constraint the participation. For example, according to Ingle and Halimi (2007), there

are three institutional barriers: (i) a lack of local awareness about existing and new

policies, laws and regulations; (ii) reliance on mass organizations such as the

Women’s and Youth Unions; (iii) a lack of tools that facilitate participation along

with useful detail guidelines on when, where and how to apply the tools. However,

the findings identified that these are not enough barriers and not the root of the lack

of or without undertaking citizen participation in the planning process. Not only the

executive modes but also the governance modes should be considered further in the

implementation about what it is, to what extend the citizen can participated on the

government’s issues, particularly in the planning process. The executive modes such

as tools facilitating participation can develop through capacity building and technical

supports and this have been undertaken can be implemented through partnerships

with NGOs and INGOs or transferred from the other countries. Thus this would not

be a difficult task and a focal point of the participation problems. But the governance

mode, which relates to political, cultural, and social issues and needs to get deep into

the government and society problems or system, is a crucial and a root of the other

linkages and problems as discussed in previous section. This contributes to the

conclusion of Werlin (2003) about the difference between poor nations and rich

nations are because of ‘poor countries suffer from the inadequate governance rather

than inadequate resources’ (p. 337). One of the ideological approaches to reforming

governance is participation, this has been applied in many countries and literatures

(Peters, 2001, p.50).

In Vietnam, the participation of community and citizens on the government’s

issues has obtained a certain progress since the government incrementally pays more

attention to the participatory planning approach. However, it also has some

limitations. The lack of local people showing interest in local level planning may be

caused by frustration with their past efforts. Frustration and lack of interest in bottom-

up planning mechanisms is also caused by the too-limited contribution from the

village allowed in the formulation of the policies which are implemented by the

government. In practice, if the people get things other than those they asked for, they

will be disappointed and dissatisfied. The government needs to transfer its good

intentions into good policies that can meet local governments’ needs and provide the

desired benefits for their communities. To obtain continuing support from the people

they should not only be provided with the chance to offer their opinions about

developments, but also see that at least some of their proposals have been accepted.

In the context of the processes of government, this requires an opening up the minds

of the programmers or planners to the local people’s knowledge of their own living

conditions as well as their expectations, potentials and constraints. For encouraging

276

real participation from local people, dialogue and transparency from the government

is needed. The participation in the local planning process needs early involvement of

all stakeholders who are concerned about or affected by the eventual decisions (Peters

2001; McIntyre-Mills 2003a, 2004, 2005a, b, 2006a, Vu & McIntyre-Mills 2008).

One of the strengths of the planning process is the available legal frameworks

and documents for enhancing participation in the planning process. One example is the

promulgation of the grass-root democracy decree that requires community and

households to participate, monitor and evaluate the development activities at commune

level. In addition, during preparation stage of doing 5-year plan, the prime minister also

created a decree in which enhance participation of the community on the plan.

However, the constitution or legal documents may be the basic document that specifies

the main structure of a governance system, but it is not a guarantee of practicing

democratic governance. However, the executive of the participation is limited. The

participation is happening in the internal organizations and indirectly through the

General Party Congress. This participation is around the middle of the process and

mainly on the basis of a discussion plans draft. This can raise difficulties for

government when governments do not sufficiently consult on the nature of the problem

as understood by others (Edwards 2000, p.5). The limited internal participation can

restrict motivation of employees’ contribution to the organization because according to

the USGAO (1995) the ‘involvement and participation are the most effective means

for motivating individual employees, even it those practices do have the potential to

become manipulative’ (as cited in Peters, 2001, p.53).

Moreover, the lack of participation on the planning process could miss out

benefits and advantages of participation. This study has identified some reasons for

non-participation of citizens in the planning process such as time constraints, lack of

a mechanism for implementing and governing participation and lack of resources,

but it seems that none of these can be a complete excuse for ignoring the communities

by the government planners. The reason for the time constraints facing the district

government officers can be the time consumed at meetings and workshops to deliver

new policies, regulations and other issues, and because the higher level (the Planning

Department at Provincial level) gives the district planners only one month from the

date of receiving decrees, guidelines and instructions to the date they are required to

be submitting the district-level plan, but this reason may be given as just an excuse.

Strategic planning is a process over time. If the local government wanted to hear the

community voice or, in other words, they wanted to implement a bottom-up approach,

they should prepare and conduct participatory approaches such as holding community

workshops, meetings and seminars to collect community ideas about desired futures

and what they need to do in the next five years, or how can they get there and achieve

277

a better life. Then the local government would have community ideas on hand and

when they receive the documents from higher level, the local government could test

out their ideas to assess the desirability of its proposed plan. This would be a way of

implementing a combined approach that incorporates both the top-down and bottom

up approaches. The reason for the lack of a mechanism for implementing and

governing participation is the negative attitudes and the lacking of trust of

administrators or governments officers in citizen participation. This prevents

authentic public participation on the planning process and this is also echoered with

King and Stivers (1998), and King, Feltey, and Susel (1998) as cited in Yang (2005).

As shown in the case study of Dong Anh district government, the CEO said that

conducting participation of community or citizen in the governments issues would

not be usefulness because their contribution would not valuable and useable. This can

cause to a loss of public trust to government because ‘citizens will not trust public

administrators if they know or feel that public officials do not trust them’ (Yang

2005). Building mutual trust between government and citizen is essential for society

development and for a condition of collective actions and intentions. The other reason

suggested by the data analysis is the lack of resources such as human resources and

financial resources for implementing participation in the local planning process.

Financial resources are limited for the local government, no budget scheme or

mechanism is established for participation in the local planning process. However,

according to Burnheim (1985, pp.178-179):

even if the cost in time, effort and information of running a system of

decentralized decision-making were to prove considerably greater than for

centralized systems, that cost should not count against demarchy if all the benefits

are considered.

What ‘demarchy’ (Burnheim 1985, pp.178-179) does is give everybody “a

chance of having a place for a time in a small group where his or her voice can make

a real difference deciding about matters of public importance that interest those

making the decisions”.

McIntyre-Mills (2003a, 2006a) argues that participatory democracy enables

enhanced representation without undermining the role of a strong state bureaucracy.

There is a place for both hierarchical decisions (which are necessary in some contexts

like emergencies) but for the most part network governance and participatory

democracy are useful for testing out ideas. Networks that span boundaries can be used

to develop rights and responsibilities that do not erode the state and the

responsibilities that go with it. Narrow forms of demarchy are not supported by this

research or that of McIntyre-Mills as it could be a disservice for social and

environmental justice.

278

It is argued that excluding participants from the planning process, especially the

younger generations, may lead to unsustainable top-down decisions that impact on the

environment that they will have to live in. The satisfaction of future environmental

needs of young generations might be overlooked by others than themselves. Therefore,

it is necessary to enhance participation in the local planning process. One way to make

this occur is to apply a strategic planning approach involving systemic governance and

interventions, which can enable ‘deep democracy’ (with more participation by the

community) and deliver a more sustainable society and development.

In addition, the important reasons for excluding participation in the planning

process are the reluctance, the negative attitudes and the lack of trust of administrators

or government officers in citizen participation. These are possibly because the

government officers are not interested in reform and do not favor public discussion.

They are rigid in what they think and assume is right and sound for the public, and

speak in a definite voice when talking about that. This prevents authentic public

participation in the planning process which also coincideswith the findings of King

and Stivers (1998); King, Feltey, and Susel (1998) as cited in Yang (2005, p. 274),

and Blair (2004, p.105). Their research concluded that authentic and effective

participation of the public in the planning process requires a “rethinking of the

underlying roles of, and relationships between, administrators and citizens” (King,

Feltey, and Susel 1998, p.317), or “care and forethought by planners and

administrators” (Blair 2004, p.105). As shown in the case study of Dong Anh district

government, the CEO said that conducting participation by the community or citizens

in governments issues would not be useful because their contribution would not

valuable and useable. This is a big misunderstanding of citizen participation as it can

ensure that planning is more appropriate to the needs of the people. This exclusion

can cause a loss of public trust in government because “citizens will not trust public

administrators if they know or feel that public officials do not trust them” (Yang 2005,

p. 273). Therefore, building mutual trust between the government and the citizen is

essential for society’s development and for a condition of collective actions and

intentions. It is suggested that this can be developed by applying the strategic planning

because according the study of Denhardt (1985, p.175), strategic planning can be a

means for building up trust and commitment between governments and citizens.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

Planning in local government needs to be democratic and to be able to meet

challenges of uncertainty and changeable environments incrementally. Government

officers and planners when developing a plan need to keep in mind that issue might

be complex (McIntyre, 2007). They might need a plan comprehensively with good

governance and in action. Strategic planning would be concerned with the ideas

279

coming from consultation with community domain and having facilitators instead of

experts driven. The evaluation of its implementation and process is ongoing process

instead of the evaluation of final result or plan. The planning needs to be inclusivity

and participative on the whole process.

4.1. Inclusivity

Inclusivity of values, knowledge, ideas and aspirations that provides the

requisite variety required for optional choices is important component of the systemic

governance strategic planning process. In the public sector, thinking and acting

strategically should not be shaped by an individual or a group of people. It should be

reflected to and made for communities and citizens because local knowledge is the basis

for creativity (McIntyre 2005 a; b). In relation to the core function and task of government,

Edgar (2001) provides an excellent illustration through the following statement:

‘The job of government is to provide the stitches that link the patchwork, not

prescribe the colour, shape and texture of every separate piece of the quilt. The best of

the new links will be created by people who rely on their own practical, tacit knowledge

of what is needed and shows harmess their own anger and frustration into a new and

positive energy. They may well be uncomfortable for politicians and bureaucrats alike,

but that is what democracy is all about. People problems are not neat and tidy packages

to be handled by experts as the center’ (Edgar 2001, p.193).

Indeed, Edgar (2001) stressed the need for diverse ‘patches’ to be fostered at the

local level. However, diversity is not only the basis of creativity, but it needs to be

reflected in the policy making process (McIntyre, 2003). Participation of the people is

one of the most important requirements in the policy making process related to creating

and crafting new links in the ‘patchwork’. This should be done through systemic

governance. According to McIntyre-Mills (2006), systemic governance is ‘a process of

marching services to needs and ensuring participation by users or people concerned

about issues affecting life, dealth and future generations. …Systemic governance is

both a process and structure, because its aim is to balance individualism and

collectivism and that is the basis of democracy’ (p. XXXVIII).

According to the New English Dictionary and Thesaurus (1999), democracy

is a form of government by the people through elected representatives. Democracy

means there is a decentralization of authority to the stakeholders, an appropriate

delegation of authority from the central to the local government. Based on the

people’s trust through this election, the government will craft and design their

prospective future community. Local government has a key role to play in both

forward planning and providing the means for people to have a say in designing their

future community environment, prioritizing their needs and deciding on how the

resources should be utilized.

280

Contributing to these, McIntyre-Mills added that decision-making, planning

and risk management can be addressed better by including everyone in systemic

governance process in which decisions are made for a sustainable future, but also

establishing quick centralized responses to disaster planning and disaster response. She

recognized that…participatory design is the goal for both pragmatic and idealistic

reasons¹. Complexity of decisions must match the complexity of the issues and the

more arguments that are considered the better the testing out of ideas. Respectful

communication energizes and builds hope and trust. Creating the conditions for

enabling open questioning and expression of feeling is vital for communication that

supports sustainable governance. This enables ideas, emotions, values and experiences

to be shared on a regular basis, so that creative energy is not blocked.

(McIntyre-Mills 2006, p. XLI)

In summary, systemic governance and participatory planning design approach

is appropriate for creating, formulizing and actuating their vision which

accommodated their aspiration (needs and wants) into reality. The involvement of the

stakeholders in making strategic decisions both in the central and local level is very

important because it could increase the commitment and obedience of stakeholders,

especially local people, to fulfil all the objectives of decisions made.

4.2. Participative process

As the definition of strategic planning mentioned in Section 2.2, strategic

planning is convergence of collective intentions and efforts from various. It is a

vision of the whole community. It requires involving all levels and functional units

of an agency-top executives, middle managers and supervisors and employees, and

participation of other various stakeholders such as business, communities and

ordinary people.

The principle of participation derives from an acceptance that people are at the

heart of development. At the broader, societal level, recent research has demonstrated

that governments are often most effective when they operate within a robust civil

society. Participation of civil society offers an additional and complementary means

of channelling the energies of private citizens. NGOs, for example, can be helful in

identifying people’s interests, mobilizing public opinion in support of these interests,

and organizing action accordingly. They can provide governments with a useful ally

1

The assumption that underpins this process is that good governance requires asking good questions and

providing the conditions-not merely to allow-but to foster good conversations and the asking of good questions.

Providing space for diversity and for convergence –to find the shared themes-is the challenge. Governance

requires that decisions should be applied at the level at which they are made (Edgar 2001) and that the requisite

variety of decision makers are involved in making decisions about the future, to apply Ashby’s Law 91956,

Ashby, in Lewis and Stewart 2003). Local areas of specialization can be developed drawing on the expertise

or personel knowledge of the people who have direct experience.

281

in enhancing participation at the community level and fostering a “bottom up”

approach to economic and social development.

At the project level, a growing body of empirical evidence demonstrates that

initiatives tend to be more successful when stakeholders and beneficiaries are

integrated into the planning process. This principle also contains a normative

component, in the belief that people have a right to be consulted about initiatives that

will have a major impact upon their welfare and lifestyle. Participation implies that

government structures are flexible enough to offer beneficiaries and others affected

the opportunity to improve the design and implementation of public policies,

programs, and projects. Examples of C&P in ADB’s Operations Manual Activities

that involve high social, economic, or environmental risks or central objectives

promoting participation and empowerment will require more and deeper participation

throughout the project cycle.

Indeed, participation can help for testing out ideas to know that strategic plan

is going on the right track among various stakeholders. The testing is done by the

people and the experts so that lived knowledge and professional knowledge are

combined. According to McIntyre (2003), knowledge based on personal experience

or tacit knowledge can be made more widely useful if it is pooled and shared. She

stressed that ‘open debate is central to democracy and the enlightenment to test out

the ideas amongst all stakeholders, not just the experts or elected representatives’

(McIntyre 2005a, p.224). She added that ‘openness to debate and to other ideas and

possibilities is the basis for both enlightenment process of testing and for democracy

and …for openness to occur there has to be some trust that voicing new ideas will not

lead to subtle or overt marginalisation of oneself or one’s associates’ (2005, p.198).

5. References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Bogason P. (2000). Public Policy and Local Governance. Institutions in Post-

modern Society, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Bryson, J. M & Einsweiler, R. C. (1988). Strategic planning: Threats and

Opportunities for planners. Planner Press: American Planning Association, Chicago.

Denhardt, J. V & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The New Public Service: Serving, not

Steering. M. E. Sharpe, New York.

Edgar, D. (2001). The Patchwork Nation: Rethinking Government-Rebuilding

Community. Harper, Sydney.

Kjaer, A.N. (2004), Governance, Polity Press, Cambridge.

282

6.

McIntyre-Mills, J. (2003). Participatory Design: The Community of Practice

(COP) approach and its relevance to strategic knowledge management and

ethical governance. Journal of Sociocybernetics, 4(1), 1-21.

7.

8.

McIntyre-Mills, J. (2006), Systemic Governance and Accountability: Working and

Re-Working the Conceptual and Spatial Boundaries, Springer, New York.

Ministry of Planning and Investment (2005). Planning in Martket Economy:

contents, approaches in making socio-economic development plan. Hanoi,

Vietnam.

9.

World Bank (2000). Vietnam: Managing Public Resource Better, Public

Expenditure Review 2000. The World Bank, Hanoi.

10. World Bank (2005). Vietnam Development Report 2005: Governance. The

World Bank, Hanoi, Vietnam.

11. World Bank (2006). Governance Matters. The World Bank, Washington D.C.

283