Reducing leads is just the beginning
From July 1, 2025, the whole country will operate a two-level local government model with 34 provincial-level administrative units and 3,321 commune-level administrative units, ending the operation of 696 district-level administrative units. This is one of the biggest changes in the organizational structure in recent decades. These changes are not simply a problem of the number of organizations. Reducing intermediate levels creates conditions to promote decentralization and delegation of power, bringing more tasks closer to the grassroots level.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Thi Thu Hoa - Head of Public Management Department, University of Economics and Law, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City - assessed that the initial results of the arrangement process are positive when the apparatus basically operates stably, without major disruptions.
According to experts, many localities have proactively implemented new institutions such as commune-level Public Service Centers, arranged cadres and civil servants and maintained relatively smooth operations. Notably, the arrangement process has initially been associated with changing service methods, bringing public services closer to the people and gradually adapting to new management requirements.
However, reducing focal points is only the first step. According to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Thi Thu Hoa, the next stage needs to shift from "organizational stability" to improving operational quality and management efficiency. Because a more streamlined apparatus does not mean a more efficient operating apparatus if decentralization, team capacity, digital infrastructure and coordination mechanisms are not completed.
“Continuing to review and streamline organizations needs to be implemented in the direction of substantive restructuring, not just stopping at mechanically reducing focal points” - experts said.
Output efficiency must become a measure of reform
According to her, first of all, it is necessary to streamline based on functions, tasks and values created. Agencies and units need to be reviewed to eliminate overlap and duplication, and at the same time integrate units with similar functions. Each organization needs to have clear functions, specific outputs and be measurable.
Along with that is strengthening inter-sectoral coordination. Many current management issues are inter-sectoral, so if the apparatus is too fragmented, it will reduce processing efficiency. Organization design needs to be more flexible, reduce intermediaries and increase coordination capacity.
Another requirement is to link streamlining the organization with streamlining the process. If focal points are reduced but procedures are still complicated, and people still have to go through many stages, the reform goal will not be achieved. Therefore, it is necessary to simultaneously simplify procedures, standardize processes and promote digitization to reduce the volume of administrative work.
Most importantly, according to experts, output efficiency must become a measure of reform. Success lies not only in reducing how many focal points, how many levels or how many staff, but must be reflected in the quality of governance and the level of satisfaction of people and businesses.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bui Thi An - Director of the Institute of Natural Resources, Environment and Community Development - said that the road ahead still needs to be further completed so that changes in the organizational structure can truly transform into changes in management quality.
Accordingly, it is necessary to focus on completing the implementation organization stage to create substantive changes in governance quality. In which, decentralization needs to go hand in hand with specific decentralization of power, resources and responsibilities.
If power is delegated without clear resources or conditions for implementation, subordinates will not be able to complete the task" - Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bui Thi An said.
She proposed strengthening direction and guidance for the commune level, and at the same time promoting the accountability of the head of the grassroots level. The head must be responsible for the good things done as well as the bad things, thereby enhancing responsibility in management and administration.
