Embedded Files
From: Rylan (CET) <rylan@email.arizona.edu>
Date: Tue, May 13, 2008 at 2:24 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear List,
Last week, I bought a copy of The Economist?s special report on Viet Nam at a
shop on Dong Khoi Street in Ho Chi Minh City (for 80,000 VND). Not
surprisingly, the section entitled How Long Can the Party Last? was not
available, though all other pages were. (I located and read this final section
on the Internet.)
After reading the report, and as part of larger personal and scholarly
undertaking, I want to ask for people?s thoughts regarding to what extent it
makes sense to talk about the changes taking place in Viet Nam over roughly the
past 20 years (including those described in The Economist) as neoliberal. Not
especially surprising, The Economist does not use the term neoliberal, nor does
it really discuss structural adjustment policies or Viet Nam?s past or present
relationships with multinational organizations such as the IMF or the World
Bank. I?m in a position of less confidence than I would like to be with
regard to saying that the special report should have addressed such issues, and
I would like to change that. So, I?m seeking understandings and/or reading
suggestions from anyone who can shed some light.
Again, the most basic question is to what extent Viet Nam?s current social,
economic and political landscape is the product of policy decisions shaped by a
neoliberal worldview. By neoliberal, I refer to the Milton Friedman/Chicago
School/Washington Consensus style of economic development and policymaking that
pushes for privatization, deregulation and cutting government spending. I am
familiar with some specific changes in Viet Nam (e.g. those affecting health
care and education) that, at least at times, have fit somewhat well with the
neoliberal model for passing expenses on to average people. And of course many
previously state-owned enterprises are no longer owned entirely or at all by
the state. At the same time Viet Nam?s poverty reduction efforts seem less
in-line with neoliberal tendencies, as do it?s capital controls and choices
to maintain full ownership in certain sectors. I am looking for as broad of an
understanding as possible, while still maintaining the depth I found lacking in
The Economist, and literature searches have not been especially fruitful.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Best,
Rylan
Vietnam Programs Director
CET Academic Programs
Doctoral Candidate, Anthropology
University of Arizona
----------
From: Adam <adam@aduki.com.au>
Date: Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:30 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
This is a good question. It is interesting that there is not too much that
you have found. There is a large donor literature arguing that Vietnam's
success derives from good policies and so they must also argue that these
policies were neoliberal, given mainstream donor development doctrine.
Personally I find this hits two snags at least, though inconsistency only
rarely matters that much here. First, the state share of GDP has tended to
stay high and at times rise since the break-out to a market economy in the
early 1990s. Depends how you define terms of course, but this is a tricky
one. Secondly, I doubt whether any practising Vietnamese politician finds
the political dogmas of neoliberalism other than nonsensical - for example,
that the state exists mainly to correct market failure. It is one thing to
shift the balance of service provision from the state to the family (note
that this is a matter of degree, as large parts of the population are meant
to get subsidies etc), it is quite another to see this is part of an
autonomous society to which the state meant to be a minor adjunct. The
Party's Leninism ensures that it teaches that its power rests on society and
derives from a range of factors of which the VFF and Mass Organisations are
very much part. This goes with the rapid growth of Vietnam's capitalism. But
check out the yearly donor reports and see what you think. There are so few
countries around with nearly two decades of rapid growth, steep poverty
reduction and political stability that Vietnam is a very useful source of
information, accounts and so on. A good example is the way the current World
Development report tells us lots of useful lessons from Vietnam. I am being
ironic.
Who was it who said 'watch what they do rather than listen to what they
say?'
Adam
----------
From: Martin Gainsborough <martin.gainsborough@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, May 13, 2008 at 4:11 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
A second attempt to actually post my message!
The interesting thing I find here is how Vietnam's so-called 'reforms' have
evidently taken place in a neo-liberal global climate, and that in order to
unlock aid money, Vietnamese elites have certainly learned to talk the talk.
Some individuals may even believe in neo-liberalism but like Adam I find
this hard to believe (how can you if you are Vietnamese given all that this
means in terms of political culture, views of the state and its 'correct'
relationship with markets etc). Nevertheless, I think it may be mistaken to
say that neo-liberalism has had no influence on Vietnam. Some people have
drawn attention to what appear to be the trappings of neo-liberalism in
important areas of public policy (health, education). But my point and my
suspicion is that what comes out in the wash is so metamorphosed by local
conditions that to call it neo-liberalism is really to miss the point.
Best wishes
Martin Gainsborough
Bristol, UK
----------
From: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, May 13, 2008 at 6:53 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Take the introduction of user fees in health and education for example
(which I presume is what Martin is alluding to). A neo-liberal idea,
disastrous for the very poor but also a way to preserve state services
and protect public sector salaries in an era of transition. UNDP in
Hanoi initially (in mid-2006) tried to persuade the government against
them because of their effect on the poor - but within a few months gave
up when it realised it wasn't going to win.
Bill Hayton
UK
----------
From: Jonathan Pincus <jonathan.pincus@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/5/13
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Bill,
I agree with you that user fees are a fiscal safety valve in the face of rising demand for services. They are a kind of regressive local tax. The government argues that it combines user fees with safety nets, but UNDP research has also shown that the safety net is leaky, to say the least. So you are right that the net impact is very bad for the poor.
I don't think we in UNDP thought we were going to "win" (whatever that can mean for an international agency in Vietnam) and no we did not give up within a few months. We continue to conduct empirical analysis of the impact of these policies to try to inform the debate a little bit if we can. We have another study coming out soon on the impact of Decree 10/43 (autonomy for service providing institutions).
As to whether this amounts to importing "neo-liberalism" into VN, I'm with Adam. Watch what they do.
Jonathan
.
----------
From: Meg Hiesinger <meghiesinger@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/5/13
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Rylan,
You may already know of these books, but they were some of the better scholarly works on neoliberalism that I found when trying to address the same kinds of questions you posed regarding Vietnam for my dissertation.
-Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Harvey is sort of the reigning theory king on neoliberalism at least in my corner of things, and I found this book really helpful for structuring my understanding of how neoliberalism operates at an ideological level and at a policy level, across different sectors. I also found his chapter on what he describes as a certain "Chinese brand of neoliberalism" (a totalitarian state adopting neoliberal market policies) to be really useful for thinking about Vietnam. His suggestion that neoliberalism and totalitarianism inherently fit very well with each other is important.
- Deborah Johnston and Alfredo Saad-Filho, eds. Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2005.
This edited volume contains a number of brief case-style essays on neoliberalism in many different parts of the world, written by a range of economists, sociologists, and development practitioners. The basic upshot of the volume is that "neoliberalism" is hard to define or pinpoint precisely because of the flexible and adaptive ways different states implement neoliberal policies. The authors go so far as to Saad-Filho and Johnston's intro was helpful.
Ong, Aihwa. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.
She uses cases from different Asian countries to make the argument again that different states selectively implement neoliberal policies in political spaces carved out of pre-existing frameworks. And her argument is that this type of adaptive and selective use of neoliberal policies is itself a central feature of neoliberalism.
Hope these help,
Cheers,
Meg Hiesinger
Post Doctoral Research Associate
Department of Anthropology
University of California Berkeley
----------
From: Christina Firpo <christina.firpo@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/5/13
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Erik Harms presented a fascinating paper at the AAS 2008. It was an anthropological approach that called neoliberalism and its results into question.
Best,
Christina
--
Christina Firpo, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Southeast Asian History
CalPoly University
San Luis Obispo, California
----------
From: Hue-Tam Ho Tai <hhtai@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: 2008/5/13
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I'd like to introduce a historical perspective in this discussion.
There is no doubt that the fee for service system disadvantages the poor insofar that they cannot pay for services that are available for a fee. My question is whether such services were available at all before the introduction of fees? If basic services were available to all before and are no longer available now, it is different from some higher level of services being available to those who can pay now.
My sister graduated from the Saigon Medical School in 1976 (she should have graduated in 1975 but the class was held over for indoctrination). After graduation, she was sent to Long Xuyen where she worked in the local hospital for 10 years, until 1986. She used to write that it broke her heart when meeting patients who needed medicine because the hospital cupboard was bare, or when having to tell patients that they needed plenty of rest and nourishing food because neither of these were available to these patients--a reason they had gotten sick in the first place. She herself was sent home because she contacted pleurisy. The hospital told her that it was not able to treat her. My mother was able to buy the needed medicine on the black market. You'll notice that she was sent home the year that Doi Moi was launched.
So what are we comparing the current situation with? And where?
Hue-Tam Ho Tai
----------
From: Christina Schwenkel <cschwenk@ucr.edu>
Date: 2008/5/13
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Here is information on the AAS 2008 panel and papers that addressed neoliberalism, in addition to Erik Harm's abstract:
http://www.aasianst.org/absts/2008abst/SouthEast/SE-48.htm
Christina Schwenkel
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
1327 Watkins Hall
University of California, Riverside
Page updated
Report abuse