"We will experience spectacular growth."

Continuing his discussion with Vietnam Weekly, Dr. Tran Dinh Thien, a member of the Prime Minister's Policy Advisory Council, believes that this is a golden opportunity for Vietnam to innovate its growth model and unlock resources for development.

For a long time, the State has not only been a "referee" but also a "major player" in markets such as banking, energy, telecommunications, and land. When it plays the role of a "player," naturally, resources will be concentrated in that player's favor, distorting the playing field for other players, sir?

Dr. Tran Dinh Thien : Here, the core question is not just whether the State should participate in the market, but rather: Is the State discriminating between its own sector and the private sector?

That is the institutional issue that needs to be carefully examined in the coming period. Because if the State continues to play the role of "both referee and player," then no matter what is said, the principle of market equality cannot be implemented, and all reforms will remain merely superficial.

We transitioned from a centrally planned economy where the State was the almost sole entity, holding all regulatory, production, and distribution roles. When we moved to a market economy, the State's role should have gradually narrowed, shifting from "the worker" to "the creator," from "the producer" to "the coordinator and supervisor."

However, for a long time, we maintained the view that the state-owned economy was "dominant" and "of paramount importance," while the private sector – despite accounting for the majority of businesses and jobs – was still considered a "supplementary component."

Only today has Vietnam officially identified the private sector as one of the most important driving forces of its economy.

Mr. Tran Dinh Thien: People and businesses have confidence because they see real change happening – from resolutions to laws and actions.

Ideally, in a market economy, the State should understand that the private sector is the "main player," while the State plays a "facilitating" role: creating conditions, providing support, and supervising. Even if the private sector is still weak, policies should aim to nurture and protect it, rather than allowing a situation where roles are reversed: the State controls the majority of resources, while the private sector plays only a supporting role.

That approach is a form of discrimination, contrary to the principles of a market economy. The fundamental principle should be: all economic sectors are equal in terms of legal status, access to resources, and opportunities.

In other words: if the State owns many power plants, while the private sector lacks the capacity to participate, then the State must temporarily assume that role. But simultaneously, it must pave the way for private sector participation; a monopoly cannot be maintained indefinitely simply because it holds vested interests.

The issue is not about whether it's the state or the private sector, but about allocating resources according to the principles of non-discrimination, openness, and transparency.

In reality, many current laws still contain traces of discrimination. For example, the concept of "the state-owned economy is dominant" is correct, because this economic sector includes the majority of national resources – from the budget, natural resources, land, and state-owned enterprises, etc.

That's true in principle, but it's important to understand: Regarding land, the State is only the representative owner; regarding the budget, it's the property of the entire population, not the private property of the State. Therefore, all entities – whether state-owned or private enterprises – must have equal access.

Therefore, the mechanism for allocating national resources – especially land and budget – must adhere to the principles of non-discrimination, openness, transparency, and genuine competition.

As for state-owned enterprises, which are partly truly public-owned, they must be managed transparently, professionally, and openly. If the State continues to "tightly control" business sectors, from energy to banking, without market oversight mechanisms, efficiency will never be high. In sectors where resources are allocated fairly, there is market competition, and no discrimination, we always see superior efficiency. A fair and transparent competitive goods market is a prime example. We always see that goods are never in short supply, prices are always competitive, and there is no need for intervention.

Removing all cognitive and institutional barriers will lead to spectacular development. Photo: Hoang Ha

In numerous documents from various Party congresses, the need for "renewal of thinking" and the demand for "resource allocation according to market principles" have been repeatedly emphasized. How do you view this reality?

This is a difficult point because we still lack a system that truly encourages the private sector. Subconsciously, many people still harbor the mentality that "private sector" is exploitative. This very obsession keeps the private sector – despite being acknowledged – excluded from the game at a deeper level of policy.

That's why I say that considering the private sector as the most important driving force this time is essentially a liberation of thought – a "true liberation," not just empty talk.

Because once perceptions change, policies will no longer be obsessed with the idea that "private" is exploitative. On the contrary, it is the private sector that best serves the spirit of socialism. Why? Because the private sector creates 82% of jobs and helps improve the lives of the vast majority of workers. Two or three decades ago, I told many high-ranking leaders: "The private sector is the most socialist."

Because they create jobs, generate income, contribute to poverty reduction, and improve social welfare. If the State creates conditions for the private sector to develop strongly, they can do even more good for the people – and that is the essence of modern socialism.

Therefore, the issue today is not just about policy reform, but more fundamentally about liberating thinking – breaking free from the obsession that "private sector" is exploitative.

We are going through a process of "liberation" and "renewal" of awareness and thinking. But the most difficult part lies at the fundamental level of thinking, as historically, our society has been obsessed with the idea that "the rich are exploiters," and that getting rich is contrary to the spirit of "fairness."

Fortunately, the private sector has now been recognized as the main driving force for development. By removing all barriers in perception and institutions, I believe we will achieve spectacular growth.

The problem is that a series of reform-oriented resolutions were issued very quickly with high commitment and determination. These were accompanied by resolutions from the National Assembly and the Government,...

When we talk about "rethinking," "market-based resource allocation," or "institutional breakthroughs," these terms are more convincing because they are the clear, mature results of practical experience.

For example, the assertion that "the private economy is the most important driving force" and that science and technology must lead development must become the driving force of development, not just a slogan. Similarly, the commitment that "Institutional breakthroughs must be breakthroughs within breakthroughs" has received widespread consensus.

Nowadays, the shift in mindset is much stronger. People and businesses have confidence because they see real change happening – from resolutions to laws and actions.

This time, we've chosen the breakthrough of all breakthroughs: institutional reform. But even "institutional breakthrough" must be pinpointed, not just stated in general terms.

For example, a breakthrough in the Land Law – which has remained elusive for many years due to vested interests – is necessary. For the land market to function effectively, the dominant interest structure must be broken down, just as we previously dismantled monopolies in the commercial sector.

The greatest benefits from land always lie in the connection between the government apparatus and speculators. Therefore, the key to land reform is a transparent valuation system.

Currently, we still lack a clear definition of land prices – what constitutes market price, what the pricing mechanism should be, and how to ensure fairness for development. While the market cannot provide absolute fairness, it can create fair competition, leading to a more rational and balanced allocation of resources.

If this can be achieved, the new Land Law will truly address the bottlenecks needed to unleash resources and revitalize the market.

Vietnamnet.vn

Source: https://vietnamnet.vn/chung-ta-se-phat-trien-ngoan-muc-2462577.html