Innovation policymaking in Vietnam is mostly concentrated across four core ministries: the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST); the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI); the Ministry of Finance (MOF); and the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET), and distributed across a range of other ministries and provincial governments across Vietnam.
The year 2003 saw the establishment of a National Foundation for Science and Technology Development, and a National Innovation Fund was subsequently established in 2013, playing a key role in the Vietnamese innovation ecosystem.
In practice, innovation policymaking organisations can be divided into four categories, broadly:
- Overarching decision-making or advisory bodies, such as the Office of Government or National Council for Science and Technology Policy.
- Core national government departments working on innovation, including MOST and many others.
- Other national government departments or agencies, including for example the Ministry of Industry and Commerce or the Ministry of Information and Communication.
- Decision-making bodies within local governments, at the Central, Provincial or City levels, including local Departments of Science and Technology (DOST).
Our research has led us to estimate the number of ‘core’ innovation policymakers (ranging from Programme Director to Director or Junior politician) to 81 people, which is relatively low compared to other countries in the region. For comparison, we have estimated around 370 ‘core’ innovation policymakers in Indonesia (for a population of 260 million) and 650 in Thailand (for a population of around 70 million).
Improving these policymakers’ capability to design, implement and manage efficient science, technology and innovation policies is a top priority for the Vietnamese Government, and mentioned in several key party documents or resolutions. While there are many training programmes aimed at improving the capacity of policymakers and managers in this field (including postgraduate training programmes, government training programmes, and short-term training courses), their content is usually narrow in focus and not always up-to-date with state-of-the-art theory and knowledge.
