Vietnam in XXI Century: Institutional Development of S&T and Innovation Policy

Abstract

Anna Zaytseva — Junior Research Fellow, Research Laboratory for Science and Technology Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: azaytseva@hse.ru

Address: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.

Since the beginning of 1990s the Vietnamese economy has been undergone structural changes that until recently have resulted in fast modernization and GDP growth. Recognizing the need to point economic development towards innovation, the government has undertaken institutional reform. This paper assesses the evolution of science, technology and innovation policy for the last decade in Vietnam, with emphasis on the coherence and efficiency of policy instruments. The study shows that despite major steps forward in the formation of a legislative and  institutional framework for the national innovation system, there are factors working against it. The mixed character of the Vietnamese economy (combining market institutions with tight public regulation and a significant share of public property) fostered by inconsistent and ineffective policies, discourages the innovation environment and synergy of reforms. There is also a huge gap between policy and implementation. Another factor is difficulties with setting strategic goals and defining policy priorities: policy tasks are overwhelming in number, but also there is overlap. There is no interdepartmental agency able to provide horizontal and vertical co-ordination of governmental initiatives. The bias towards fostering «technology push» as well as preserving dominance of state actors in science and industry is the most important inconsistency; «market pull» based tools remain underdeveloped. A new set of measures envisaged by the Strategy of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Development for 2011-2020 provides some opportunity for new policies. The government will need to revise the framework conditions restricting the development of competition, introduce demand-driven and inclusive development oriented tools as well as develop targeted and complementary regulation. Qualitative improvement of institutions requires introducin competitiveness where now economic elites dominate, and this, again, forces into the open the tension between economic pluralism and political monopoly.