This article analyses common and cross-cutting issues shared by different dimensions of decentralization in Vietnam since Doi Moi. It shows that serious institutional fragmentations has rendered decentralization ineffective. | Journal of Southeast Asian Economies Vol. 33, No. 2 (2016), pp. 188–208 ISSN 2339-5095 print / ISSN 2339-5206 electronic DOI: Vietnam Decentralization Amidst Fragmentation Vu Thanh Tu Anh Since Doi Moi (1986), decentralization in Vietnam has been expanded, but still limited to fiscal and administrative rather than political decentralization. From the central perspective, decentralization has undermined the uniformity of national policies and encouraged unhealthy competition among local governments. For local governments, decentralization has not always been accompanied by institutional autonomy and sufficient financial resources. Moreover, there has been a lack of synchronization between central ministries as well as consistency between the different dimensions of decentralization. Finally, the people and businesses have neither been adequately involved nor had sufficient voice in the most important decentralization policies. This article analyses common and cross-cutting issues shared by different dimensions of decentralization in Vietnam since Doi Moi. It shows that serious institutional fragmentations has rendered decentralization ineffective. Given Vietnam’s political economy, the first priority in designing decentralization policy is to overcome these fragmentations and prepare the prerequisites for effective and efficient decentralization. Keywords: Decentralization, institutional fragmentation, political economy, Vietnam. 1. Introduction Formal decentralization in Vietnam started with Doi Moi (economic innovation) in 1986 and accelerated in the late 1990s. Since then, the scope of decentralization has continuously been expanded. However, the scope has been mostly limited to fiscal and administrative decentralization rather than political or personnel decentralization. Decentralization was expected to “promote strong dynamism, creativity, autonomy, self-responsibility at all local government levels in their management and .
