Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences

About: Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences is a education organization based out in Hanoi, Vietnam. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Vietnamese & Poverty. The organization has 228 authors who have published 222 publications receiving 1690 citations. The organization is also known as: VASS.

Gender Biases in Resettlement Processes in Vietnam

Abstract: The impacts of development-induced resettlement disproportionately affect women, as they frequently face more difficulties than men to cope with disruption and changes. Women’s situation might furt...

Does Rural Credit Mediate Vulnerability Under Idiosyncratic and Covariate Shocks? Empirical Evidence from Vietnam Using a Multilevel Model

Abstract: This study explores the relationship between the uptake of credit and household vulnerability in rural Vietnam in terms of two main vulnerability indicators—vulnerability as expected poverty (VEP) and vulnerability to food poverty (VFP)—using data from the 2012 Vietnam Access to Resources Household Survey. VEP and VFP are examined under two decompositions, idiosyncratic vulnerability and covariate vulnerability, by constructing a multilevel structure model. The analysis accounts for two critical problems (selection bias and endogeneity) through an endogenous switching regression model. Generally, the results indicate the positive impacts of credit uptake on poverty alleviation and VEP reduction. Nevertheless, credit uptake increases VFP. Noticeably, compared to other categories of credit, productive credit is found to be more pronounced in reducing either idiosyncratic or covariate vulnerability. There is also suggestive evidence that although credit has positive effects overall, taking on either formal or semiformal credit has negative impacts on both poverty and vulnerability reduction. Hence, towards formal credit, government policies should concentrate more on credit costs and support preferential loan rates for poor rural households for productive purposes.

Vietnamese Civic Organisations: Supporters of or Obstacles to Further Democratisation? Results from an Empirical Survey

Abstract: In political science and in development cooperation, civic organisations (COs) under authoritarian rule are usually seen as supporters of processes that move towards democratisation. However, these organisations are sometimes criticised for their support of those in power. Within this context, critics refer to the fact that many COs have, for example, authoritarian intra-organisational structures. This characteristic clearly limits their potential to be supporters of democratisation processes. In this paper, we proceed from the assumption that Vietnamese COs can be both supporters of democracy and organisations that help to maintain authoritarian rule; they can sometimes even be both at the same time. COs are “polyvalent” (Kosler). More concretely, what COs are and which role(s) they play in the political system is mainly but not exclusively dependent on the impact the state has on them, and is at the same time dependent on the effects that those organisations have on the state. The results from an empirical survey, supported by the German Research Council (2013–2016) and carried out as a co-operation between the Institute of Asian Studies/GIGA Hamburg and the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, suggest the following: - Most Vietnamese COs are hierarchically structured, if not organised in an authoritarian way. They are not “schools of democracy”, in the sense of Tocqueville. - Most Vietnamese COs that have engaged in the welfare provision sector, either willingly or unwillingly, have helped to foster the foundations of authoritarianism. -In the field of economic policies, the COs invited by the state to participate in and contribute to the formulation of policies do help, overall, to secure existing power structures, even though these organisations also help change various economic policies and even though their activities produce some democracy-promoting effects. - In the policy field of gender equality, women’s rights, and rights of sexual minorities, the mass organisation Vietnam Women’s Union supports the state’s respective discourse. Some NGOs active in this policy field are doing both: They support and criticise the state’s discourse on gender norms and the rights of sexual minorities. In the conclusion, we answer the question of which Vietnamese COs can be seen as supporters of further democratisation and which can be classified as obstacles.

Higher Education Governance in Vietnam: Statism Versus Institutional Autonomy

Abstract: Governance usually refers to the coordination of the activities of a social system. It relates to principles and norms of behaviour in relations between constituents. Traditionally, the governance of higher education (HE) has been conducted by hierarchical control in many countries, with the state at the top of the hierarchy. More recently, though, the governance of HE has adopted a more corporate model of coordination between state and non-state actors (Pham 2010). Despite a series of policy changes designed to move towards this model of cooperation, the governance of HE in Vietnam continues to cling far too much to the traditional hierarchical mould. The problem of how HE is governed at both the system and institutional levels can be defined by the fact that both state controls and market forces have decisive roles in the governance process. In the past, the HE system in Vietnam trained graduates only for a state-planned economy. Funds for HE came from the state, and the HE system was managed centrally; there was only top-down governance. In the multi-sectoral economy which resulted from the doimoi (renovation) policy implemented in 1986, the HE system serves not only the state sector but also non-state ones. In these circumstances, higher education institutions (HEIs) are ideally given more autonomy in governance. Although this market-renovation policy has been in place for 30 years, the state still has a strong power over HEIs. This chapter will analyse how this power has affected coordination between the state agency and HEIs in the governance process.