2004年-世界发展银行全球_Vietnam_Development_Report_2005___Governance_186页_13mb

Vietnam Development Report 2005: Governance

Core Content

The Vietnam Development Report 2005: Governance provides an in-depth analysis of the evolving governance structures in Vietnam, focusing on public finance, management, and policy. It highlights the progress made in decentralization, transparency, and accountability, while also identifying key challenges that remain in the development process.

Main Points

Public Finance: Expenditures and Revenue

• Budget Process: The 2001 Constitution and the 2004 State Budget Law empowered the National Assembly to hold votes of no-confidence and approve the budget, including allocations to lower levels of government.
• Decentralization: Almost half of budget expenditures are now decided at sub-national levels, with provincial governments having more autonomy to allocate resources based on local priorities.
• Public Financial Management: Strengthened systems are being implemented to unify accounting mechanisms and improve data management, which is expected to enhance control over spending and transparency.
• Taxes and Fees: The report emphasizes the need to improve tax administration, particularly for Corporate Income Tax (CIT) and Value Added Tax (VAT), to increase government revenue and reduce reliance on regressive local fees.
• Targeted Programs: The Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction (HEPR) program has been effective in channeling resources to the poorest households and communities. However, not all components are equally effective, and there is a need to consolidate and improve transparency in funding modalities.

Public Management: Efficiency and Integrity

• Employment and Pay: The Ministry of Finance (MOF) and Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) play critical roles in shaping employment and pay policies. However, the lack of coordination between these ministries leads to inefficiencies in budget allocations.
• Investment and Resettlement: The report highlights the need for better coordination between planning and budgeting to ensure that investment projects and resettlement programs are properly funded and managed.
• Decentralization and Participation: Decentralization is progressing, but many government units are not yet accustomed to planning towards development outcomes. Participation mechanisms are being introduced, but more work is needed to ensure equity and access.
• Fighting Corruption: A renewed focus on tackling corruption is part of the reform process, with the introduction of the One-Stop Shop (OSS) model expected to improve service delivery and reduce petty corruption.

Public Policies: Vision and Partnership

• Planning Process: The transformation of the budget process has not been matched by a similar transformation in the planning process. Five-year plans have traditionally focused on production targets rather than development outcomes.
• Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS): Approved in 2002, the CPRGS represents a shift towards development outcomes such as the Vietnam Development Goals (VDGs). However, it was developed outside the normal planning cycles, and its integration into the Socio-Economic Development Plan (SEDP) for 2006-2010 is a positive step.
• Donor Effectiveness: Donor support has been crucial in the preparation of key analytical inputs, including the Public Expenditure Review-Integrated Fiduciary Assessment (PER-IFA) and the evaluation of HEPR and Program 135. The report also discusses the role of multi-donor trust funds and the importance of harmonizing aid with national development goals.

Key Information

Challenges Identified

• Coordination Between MOF and MPI: The lack of coordination between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Planning and Investment leads to budget inertia and misalignment between long-term planning and short-term funding.
• Quality of Services: Despite progress, the quality of education and health services remains a concern. While the budget for education and training is increasing, the overall allocation to public health is modest.
• Delegation Mechanisms: Increased autonomy for spending units has led to greater flexibility, but this has not been matched by improved accountability and equity.
• State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs): SOEs still hold significant assets, including urban land, and their performance is not adequately monitored. The report suggests that a more systematic approach to monitoring SOE performance is needed.

Recommendations

• Improve Coordination: Enhance coordination between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Planning and Investment to align medium-term planning with budgeting.
• Modernize Planning: Shift the focus of planning from production targets to development outcomes, ensuring that it is integrated with the budget process.
• Enhance Service Delivery: Introduce minimum service standards, internal audits, and mechanisms to collect feedback from the population to ensure equity and quality.
• Strengthen Tax Administration: Improve the collection of CIT and VAT to increase government revenue and reduce reliance on regressive local fees.
• Refine Budget Allocation Norms: Develop more transparent and equitable budget allocation norms based on population and poverty rates, rather than outdated indicators like the number of civil servants or hospital beds.
• Monitor SOE Performance: Implement more effective monitoring of SOE performance to ensure they contribute positively to the economy and reduce the burden on the banking sector.

Conclusion

The report acknowledges Vietnam's progress in building a more efficient and accountable public sector, but also highlights the need for continued reform in governance. It underscores the importance of aligning public policies with the goal of inclusive development and ensuring that government interventions support poverty reduction and sustainable growth. The integration of the CPRGS into the SEDP and the introduction of the OSS model are seen as significant steps in the right direction.