Resource management in vietnam (KINH tế PHÁT TRIỂN SLIDE)

Human resource • Human resource is one of four factors of production land, capital goods, human capital, and technology... Natural resource management... Comparative analysis of natural

• There are 4 gaps in Vietnam: S<I; E<M; T<G; Technological gap.

• Human resource, financial resource, physical resource, natural resources, social resource, and cultural resource are not only shortage, but also being underutilized.

• Utilization of all resources is based on many groups of factors, such as institution, education, and reform initiatives.

1 Concepts

2 Theoretical framework

3 Empirical studies of Asian Countries

Human resource

• Human resource is one of four factors of

production (land, capital goods, human capital, and technology)

Physical capital

• Physical capital refers to any non–human asset made by humans and then used in production

Natural resource management

Social capital

• Facilitate co–operation and mutually supportive

relations in communities and nations (Putnam, 1993).

• Access to information and skill sets and enhanced

power (Uzzi & Dunlap, 2005).

• Facilitate individual or collective action, generated by networks of relationships, reciprocity, trust, and

social norms (James Coleman, 1988)

Agenda

1 Concepts

2 Theoretical framework

3 Empirical studies Asian Countries

4 Policy implications for Vietnam

Comparative analysis of natural resources

and other resources for development

a) Accumulation

b) Tangible and intangible assets

c) Worn–out and value–added

Comparative analysis of natural resources

and other resources for development

Human resource

Financial resource Physical

resource Natural resource Social resource Cultural resource

Agenda

1 Concepts

2 Theoretical framework

3 Empirical studies Asian Countries

4 Policy implications for Vietnam

Growth rate of GDP per capita of some countries

(fixed price of year 2000)

Comparative labor force utilization

Source: Economic Intelligence Unit (2008)

Comparative labor productivity

Source: Asia Community Research Center (2008)

Comparative prosperity performance

Source: Economic Intelligence Unit (2008)

Unsustainable development (Philippines, Indonesia)

time

• High costs of business/Corruption/Political patronage

• After Marco regime, country is more democratic,

opportunity equality, but instability institution (As a result, country did not receive Japanese investment

(lack of international resource) (Pritchett, 2003)

• Indonesia belongs to East–Asia Miracle (WB, 1993) Country was severe impacts of financial crisis 1997 Required 8 years

to recovery to the year 1997! And then slow economic growth.

• Before 1980: do not intervene market/create

market–friendly/protect infant industry to exports.

• Crony capitalism (Suharto regime)

• Corruption (Hall, 2000)

• Unchecked authority

• Town–Village Enterprises (TVEs) (1985–2004)

• Foreign direct investment: $0 (1978), $1.66 bil

(1985), $3.49 bil (1990), $37.5 bil (1995), $40.72 bil (2000), $60.33 bil (2005), $ 69.47 bil (2006)

• Chinese overseas

Chinese industrial output categorized by

Chinese industrial output categorized by

ownership 2005

Number of enterprise (billion Chinese Gross output

Chinese energy, raw material, and water

for one unit of GDP

times, and US 2.1 times)

times, Germany 6 times, and India 1.65 times)

Pollution 

Problems of agriculture – rural – farmers

• With 50 year of industrialization and modernization, there are 15% rural labors transferred to other sectors.

• When will Chinese agricultural labor structure like US (3%), Japan (10%)?

• Abundant labor force (500 mil farmers; 30% old people) Some provinces retired at the age 50.

• Lack of cultivate land (< 0.24 ha/per laborer)

• China is a country with high proportion of farmer, but it is not a agricultural country

Korea

• Social consensus (capability, goodwill, policy from leaders)

• Talented leaders through selection

• Park Chung–hee established Economic Planning Board (Evans, 1955)

• Concrete plan to catch up the DCs

• Transparency mechanism, consistency, discipline (good government – business relationship)

Korean education

1940–1950: <10% government budgets1951–1960: 15–18%

1961–1980: 19–21%

Cultural difference between traditional

and modern society

Traditional society Modern society

Knowledge Poor, broad masses of a people Science base, quick accumulation

process

civilization

Norms Rigid customs and habits Think highly of laws, toleration

of customs and habits

Comparative analysis of natural resources

and other resources for development

Human resource

Financial resource Physical

resource Natural resource Social resource Cultural resource

1 Concepts

2 Theoretical framework

4 Policy implications for Vietnam

LDCs are not lack of resources, but resources are inefficiently used

Policy implications for Vietnam

What are lessons to be learnt from the Asian

countries?

1Create smart institutions

2Education

3Reform initiatives

1 Create smart institution

• Transparency

• Bottom–up policy (require participatory

institutions)

– Lack of business involvement

– Lack of inter–ministerial coordination

– Policies from experts rather than from politicians

Government policy failure

Vietnam: Traditional master plan drafting process

Prime

Minister Minister Drafting Team

MPI & other Ministries

Inter-ministerial review

Internal review

Technical assistance (sometimes)

No permanent channel for continuous policy dialogue

(case-by-case, temporary, ad hoc)

Appeal letter to Prime

Minister when problems

arise

Contact Ministry when necessary

Interviews, symposiums (sometimes)

Government

MPI & other Ministries

Data

Industrial policy

• Open up trade and FDI boldly

• Promote FDI–local linkage vigorously

• Strategic Thinking and Targeting

Conditions for applying game theory in Vietnam:

Transparency and international integration

• SOEs versus international agreements

SOEs restructuring

• Corruption trap

• Over–fishing

• Urbanization/environmental issues

Government budgets allocation and Central–periphery development

• Government budgets towards the periphery areas

• “Socialization” towards the central areas

(why?)

Enhance the competitiveness

 Excellence of educational system

 Quality of infrastructure

 Quality of public administration

 Skilled workers

Policy Implications for Vietnam

1 Create smart Institutions

2 Education

3 Reform initiatives