Employing comparative institutional analysis and contemporary governance theories, the study elucidates the essence of administrative restructuring from a multi-tier system to an optimized two-tier governance model. The findings demonstrate that decentralization is not merely the legal transfer of authority but also a strategic mechanism for optimizing public resources, strengthening accountability, and narrowing the distance between the state and its citizens. The research further confirms that a two-tier local government system can reduce administrative intermediary costs, improve responsiveness to localized crises, and promote greater citizen participation in public affairs. Based on these findings, the article proposes several fundamental policy orientations and implementation pathways for reforming local government structures in countries undergoing institutional transformation, with the aim of building a modern, effective, and sustainable system of national governance.
Keywords: Two-tier local government; Philosophy of decentralization; Governance effectiveness; Modern public governance; Administrative streamlining; Administrative institutions.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the evolution of contemporary public administration, reforms of local government organization are no longer viewed merely as administrative restructuring but rather as a process of redesigning public authority to enhance the effectiveness of national governance. Under the influence of globalization, digital transformation and the imperative of sustainable development, many countries have shifted from reforming bureaucratic structures to transforming governance models. This transition emphasizes leaner organizational arrangements, the reduction of intermediary administrative tiers, greater autonomy for local governments and stronger accountability mechanisms. The primary objective is not simply to reduce the number of public agencies or administrative units, but to establish an institutional structure capable of making decisions more rapidly, allocating public resources more efficiently and delivering higher-quality public services.
This transformation reflects the broader shift from the paradigm of Traditional Public Administration (TPA) to that of Modern Public Governance. While the traditional model emphasizes hierarchical authority, centralized control and procedural compliance, contemporary public governance prioritizes performance outcomes, accountability, collaborative governance and service quality. From this perspective, decentralization is not merely the transfer of functions among different levels of government; rather, it constitutes a mechanism for reallocating public authority based on the principle that decision-making powers must be aligned with adequate resources, clearly defined responsibilities and institutional capacity in order to enhance the effectiveness of the entire governance system.
Drawing on State Effectiveness Theory, the quality of governance is assessed by the state's ability to translate public authority into tangible governance outcomes, including shorter policy formulation and implementation cycles, improved public service delivery, reduced administrative transaction costs, greater transparency, and higher levels of citizen satisfaction. Consequently, restructuring the local government system is meaningful only when it fundamentally transforms the operation of public authority, shortens decision-making chains and strengthens the responsiveness of the level of government closest to citizens.
Against this backdrop, Vietnam's adoption of a two-tier local government model in 2025 represents a significant milestone in the organization and operation of state power at the local level. The elimination of an intermediate administrative tier and the expansion of the authority of commune-level governments signify a transition from hierarchical administrative control to performance-oriented governance, in which decentralization is closely linked to accountability and implementation outcomes. Accordingly, this reform should be understood not merely as an administrative restructuring initiative but as a comprehensive process of reconfiguring public authority to strengthen national governance capacity in the context of building a socialist rule-of-law state and advancing digital government.
Although issues relating to administrative reform, deconcentration, and decentralization have attracted considerable scholarly attention, existing studies have largely focused on legal frameworks or the allocation of functions among different levels of government. Comparatively little research has examined the two-tier local government model from a governance perspective, in which decentralization is conceptualized as a mechanism for enhancing governance effectiveness and restructuring public authority. In particular, the relationship between the institutional design of decentralization, the implementation capacity of grassroots governments, and the overall performance of the governance system remains insufficiently explored.
Addressing this research gap, this article focuses on three principal issues: (1) the theoretical foundations of the philosophy of decentralization underpinning the two-tier local government model; (2) the mechanisms through which this model enhances the effectiveness of public governance; and (3) the institutional, organizational and resource conditions necessary to ensure substantive decentralization, thereby contributing to the development of a modern, effective, efficient and service-oriented public administration.
To address these research objectives, the study employs document analysis, policy analysis, historical-logical analysis, comparative analysis and synthesis. These methods are used to examine the relationship between the philosophy of decentralization and governa
II. THE PHILOSOPHY OF DECENTRALIZATION: THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF THE TWO-TIER LOCAL GOVERNMENT MODEL
2.1. Decentralization in modern state governance: From functional allocation to the redesign of public authority
Throughout the global process of public administration reform, decentralization has been widely recognized as one of the fundamental principles of modern state governance. While the traditional administrative model emphasizes the concentration of authority to ensure uniformity and consistency in public administration, contemporary governance seeks to redistribute public authority by bringing decision-making closer to both policy implementers and beneficiaries. This transformation represents not merely an organizational adjustment but a broader shift from a regulatory state toward a developmental and service-oriented state.
In essence, decentralization is far more than the transfer of administrative functions among different levels of government. Rather, it is a process of redesigning the structure of public authority to ensure coherence among decision-making powers, implementation responsibilities and accountability mechanisms. According to contemporary theories of decentralization, governance effectiveness depends not on the degree of centralization or decentralization per se, but on whether decision-making authority is vested in the level of government possessing the capacity and conditions to perform governance functions most effectively. The closer decision-making authority is to local realities and citizens’ needs, the greater the government's responsiveness to policy challenges, the lower the administrative transaction costs, and the higher the overall effectiveness of governance.
For Vietnam, the establishment of a two-tier local government model is not merely a response to the need for a leaner administrative structure but also reflects a fundamental transformation in the philosophy of organizing administrative authority. By eliminating an intermediate administrative tier, expanding the authority of grassroots governments and strengthening decentralization to local authorities, the reform aims to enhance governance effectiveness through shorter decision-making processes and greater institutional autonomy at the local level.
Accordingly, the core value of the two-tier local government model does not lie simply in reducing the number of administrative tiers, but in redesigning public authority through a clearer delineation of powers, responsibilities and accountability mechanisms. This constitutes the theoretical foundation of modern public governance, in which the effectiveness of government is assessed by the quality of public service delivery rather than by the number of administrative layers.
2.2. Three dimensions of decentralization in the two-tier local government model
One of the principal limitations of existing studies on local government reform is that decentralization is often examined primarily as the administrative allocation of functions. In practice, however, decentralization can achieve its intended objectives only when decision-making authority, implementation capacity, and accountability are designed as an integrated institutional framework. Accordingly, within the two-tier local government model, decentralization should be understood as operating across three closely interconnected dimensions.
First, institutional decentralization refers to the clear allocation of powers and legal authority among different levels of government. Under the two-tier model, numerous functions are transferred directly to the provincial and commune levels, thereby shortening decision-making chains and enhancing the initiative of grassroots governments. Nevertheless, expanding local authority can produce the intended governance benefits only when jurisdictional boundaries are clearly defined, preventing overlaps in authority and the shifting of responsibilities among governmental entities.
Second, organizational and implementation decentralization involves transferring responsibility for policy implementation to the level of government closest to citizens. Under this approach, commune-level governments are no longer merely executors of administrative directives; rather, they become frontline governance actors with the authority to proactively address issues within their jurisdiction. This perspective is consistent with modern public governance, which evaluates governmental performance according to the quality of public service delivery and the capacity to respond effectively to citizens’ needs.
Third, resource decentralization constitutes the essential condition for ensuring that delegated authority can be exercised substantively and effectively. The transfer of responsibilities must therefore be accompanied by corresponding financial resources, human resources, data infrastructure and managerial instruments. At the same time, resource allocation mechanisms should continue to be improved, the quality of the civil service strengthened and digital infrastructure further developed to ensure alignment between delegated authority and implementation capacity.
These three dimensions are mutually reinforcing and collectively constitute the foundation of substantive decentralization. Consequently, reforming the two-tier local government system should not be regarded merely as an adjustment of organizational structures but rather as a comprehensive process of institutional design that integrates authority, organizational arrangements and resource allocation to enhance the governance capacity of local governments.
2.3. Decentralization and accountability: A prerequisite for substantive decentralization
One of the fundamental principles of modern state governance is that authority must be accompanied by responsibility. Accordingly, decentralization does not imply the unconditional transfer of power to local governments; rather, it must be supported by effective mechanisms for the control of public authority, oversight and accountability.
From a theoretical perspective, accountability requires that authorities entrusted with public powers conduct their functions in a transparent and open manner, remain subject to oversight by competent state institutions, society and citizens and assume responsibility for the outcomes of their decisions and actions. This constitutes a fundamental distinction between decentralization in modern public governance and the mere administrative devolution of functions.
Experiences from public sector reforms in many countries demonstrate that decentralization achieves its intended objectives only when delegated authority, implementation resources and accountability mechanisms are developed in a coherent and integrated manner. In the absence of any one of these elements, decentralization is likely to become merely symbolic, with responsibilities being transferred while decision-making authority or the necessary resources remain inadequately delegated.
Within Vietnam's two-tier local government model, the expansion of the authority of commune-level governments therefore requires the continued improvement of performance evaluation mechanisms, stronger control of public authority through legal institutions and digital data systems, and greater transparency in the operations of grassroots governments. These measures constitute essential conditions for enhancing governance effectiveness while minimizing the risks of abuse of power or the evasion of responsibility.
2.4. From the regulatory state to the service-oriented state: A transformation in the philosophy of governance
At a deeper level, the two-tier local government model reflects a broader transformation in the philosophy of state governance from an administrative approach centered primarily on control and regulation toward a governance model that places citizens and development at its core.
According to the principles of modern public governance, the state is expected not only to perform regulatory functions but also to create an enabling institutional environment, deliver high-quality public services and facilitate meaningful citizen participation in governance processes. Consequently, governmental performance should not be measured by the size of the administrative apparatus or the degree of centralized authority, but rather by the quality of public services, citizens’ satisfaction, and the efficiency with which public resources are utilized.
Within this context, the two-tier local government model aims not only to streamline organizational structures but also to establish a citizen-centered governance system. By bringing decision-making authority closer to the grassroots level, shortening administrative procedures and strengthening accountability, the model creates favorable conditions for improving the quality of services provided to citizens and businesses.
Accordingly, the significance of this governance model lies not merely in reducing the number of administrative tiers but in transforming public administration into a system of governance founded on performance, accountability and public service. This orientation is fully consistent with Vietnam’s broader objective of building a modern socialist rule-of-law state characterized by effectiveness, efficiency and service to the people.
III. THE TWO-TIER LOCAL GOVERNMENT MODEL: REDESIGNING THE STRUCTURE OF STATE AUTHORITY
3.1. Restructuring local government organization: An objective requirement for the renewal of national governance
In the field of public governance, reforming the organization of the state apparatus is not merely a matter of adjusting administrative structures but a process of redesigning the organization and operation of public authority to respond to evolving development demands. Under the combined pressures of international integration, digital transformation and the imperative to improve the quality of public service delivery, multi-tier administrative structures have increasingly revealed limitations in both administrative effectiveness and governance performance. Consequently, restructuring local government organization has become an objective requirement in the development of a modern public administration and a rule-of-law state.
From a theoretical perspective, multi-tier administrative systems emerged in an era when communication and coordination among different levels of government were relatively limited. Intermediate administrative tiers therefore played an essential role in transmitting directives and maintaining the coherence of the administrative system. However, with the rapid advancement of digital technologies and the continuous improvement of institutional frameworks, many intermediary functions have gradually lost their original significance and in some cases, have instead prolonged administrative procedures and increased governance costs.
A major weakness of multi-tier administrative structures is that decision-making processes must pass through multiple levels of review and approval, resulting in longer processing times, reduced organizational flexibility and diminished governmental responsiveness to emerging challenges. At the same time, overlapping functions and jurisdictions among different levels of government frequently lead to duplication of responsibilities, the shifting of accountability and the weakening of accountability mechanisms.
Moreover, the involvement of multiple administrative bodies in handling a single matter disperses responsibility, complicates the evaluation of implementation outcomes and reduces incentives for innovation within the administrative system. From the perspective of institutional economics, each additional intermediary layer also increases administrative transaction costs, including the costs of time, coordination, supervision and regulatory compliance incurred by citizens and businesses. The longer the administrative decision-making chain, the greater the adverse impact on resource allocation efficiency and national economic competitiveness.
Accordingly, local government reform should not be understood merely as streamlining organizational units or eliminating an administrative tier. Rather, it represents a comprehensive effort to redesign organizational structures by creating a leaner system, clearly defining institutional responsibilities, shortening the operational chain of public authority and improving coordination among different levels of government. This transformation also provides an important institutional foundation for the establishment of the two-tier local government model within Vietnam's broader process of national governance reform.
3.2. The two-tier local government model: Redesigning the operational llow of public authority
From an organizational perspective, the two-tier local government model represents a restructuring of the administrative apparatus. From a governance perspective, however, it constitutes a comprehensive redesign of the operational flow of public authority aimed at strengthening the implementation capacity of the administrative system. Accordingly, this model should not be understood simply as the elimination of one level of local government within the administrative hierarchy.
The essence of the model lies in restructuring the relationships among different levels of government by shortening the institutional distance between policy-making bodies and the authorities directly responsible for policy implementation. Public authority is connected more directly between the provincial and commune levels through a clear delineation of the functions, responsibilities and powers assigned to each level. This transformation does not alter the constitutional principle of the unity of state authority; rather, it reconfigures the organizational arrangements through which public authority is exercised in order to improve the operational effectiveness of the governance system as a whole.
From an institutional perspective, the two-tier model reflects a transition from an administrative philosophy focused primarily on organizational expansion to one centered on optimizing the operational flow of public authority. Instead of relying on multiple layers of administrative control to ensure effectiveness, the new model emphasizes a clear allocation of responsibilities among different levels of government, the reduction of intermediary administrative stages and stronger institutional integration in policy implementation. The objective of the reform is therefore not simply to reduce the number of public agencies but to establish a governance system capable of responding more rapidly, coordinating more effectively and delivering higher-quality services to citizens.
According to the theory of multi-level governance, restructuring the local government system also contributes to a more rational allocation of policy-making, coordination, and implementation functions among different levels of government. As a result, it helps reduce functional duplication, minimize jurisdictional conflicts and strengthen coherence in the implementation of public policies.
It can therefore be concluded that the two-tier local government model is not merely the outcome of administrative streamlining but also a fundamental innovation in the organization of state authority. By modernizing the institutional architecture of governance, the model establishes the foundation for a governance system that operates more effectively, transparently and responsively to the country's development needs.
IV. GOVERNANCE EFFECTIVENESS: THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF DECENTRALIZATION IN THE TWO-TIER LOCAL GOVERNMENT MODEL
4.1. Governance effectiveness: A criterion for evaluating the quality of state organizational reform
In the study of modern public governance, governance effectiveness is widely regarded as a key indicator of the quality of the operation of the state apparatus. Whereas the traditional administrative model primarily assessed effectiveness in terms of organizational structures and procedural compliance, contemporary public governance places greater emphasis on the state’s capacity to create public value. Accordingly, an effective public administration is one that delivers public services in a timely, transparent and cost-efficient manner while effectively responding to the needs of citizens and businesses.
This transformation reflects a broader shift from a structural approach to public administration toward results-based governance. In the context of local government reform, organizational streamlining is therefore not an end in itself but a means of improving governance quality and enhancing the delivery of public services.
Within the two-tier local government model, governance effectiveness serves both as the primary objective and as the principal criterion for evaluating the success of the reform. The value of the model is reflected in its capacity to shorten administrative procedures, improve the quality of public service delivery, reduce administrative transaction costs, strengthen transparency and reinforce accountability. Assessing governance effectiveness is therefore equivalent to assessing the overall success of the organizational and operational transformation of local government.
4.2. Mechanisms for enhancing governance effectiveness through the redesign of public authority
Governance effectiveness does not emerge automatically as a consequence of organizational restructuring. Rather, it is the outcome of a sequence of institutional effects generated by the redesign of the structure of state authority. This constitutes the fundamental distinction between organizational reform and governance reform.
First, the elimination of intermediary administrative tiers fundamentally alters the operational flow of administrative authority. Under the previous multi-tier system, administrative decisions typically had to pass through multiple stages of transmission, consultation and approval, resulting in longer processing times, higher coordination costs and an increased likelihood of overlapping responsibilities. By establishing a more direct institutional linkage between the provincial and commune levels, the two-tier local government model shortens decision-making processes, accelerates information flows and facilitates more timely implementation of public policies. This institutional redesign substantially reduces governance lag, one of the most common factors undermining the effectiveness of public administration.
More importantly, the two-tier model enables decision-making authority to be relocated closer to where governance issues actually arise. Once commune-level governments are granted greater autonomy within clearly defined legal mandates, many administrative matters can be resolved directly at the grassroots level without requiring consultation with or approval from intermediary authorities. This not only shortens processing times but also allows public decisions to better reflect the actual needs and conditions of local communities. In other words, decentralization creates greater institutional alignment between the locus of governance problems and the locus of decision-making authority, thereby enhancing governmental responsiveness to the increasingly diverse demands of society.
Another important mechanism contributing to improved governance effectiveness is the integration of decentralization with digital transformation in local government administration. As administrative procedures, government databases and public service delivery systems become digitalized, administrative transaction costs are substantially reduced in multiple respects, including travel time, documentation expenses and inter-agency coordination costs. At the same time, digital data systems enable real-time monitoring of administrative processes, facilitate the standardization of operational procedures and strengthen the accountability of civil servants and public officials. Within this context, digital technology should no longer be regarded merely as a managerial tool; rather, it becomes an integral component of the institutional architecture of public authority, fundamentally transforming the way public administration operates.
From the perspective of public governance, the institutional logic underlying the two-tier model may be summarized as follows:
Redesign of public authority → Reduction of intermediary administrative tiers → Shorter decision-making processes → Lower administrative transaction costs → Improved quality of public service delivery → Enhanced governance effectiveness
This causal sequence demonstrates that governance effectiveness is not the direct consequence of administrative streamlining itself. Instead, it is generated through a well-designed decentralization framework in which authority, resources, and responsibilities are allocated in a coherent and mutually compatible manner.
4.3. Empirical evidence of improved governance effectiveness
Initial implementation of the two-tier local government model has demonstrated a number of encouraging outcomes. In many localities, the time required to process administrative procedures has been reduced by three to five days, while more than 95% of administrative applications have been processed on or ahead of schedule. In addition, online public services have been substantially expanded and numerous administrative procedures have been fully digitalized. As a result, citizens and businesses have benefited from significant savings in time, travel expenses and the costs associated with intermediary administrative procedures.
The significance of these achievements extends beyond quantitative performance indicators. Rather, they reflect tangible improvements in the operational quality of the public administration. High rates of on-time administrative processing indicate greater procedural standardization and clearer implementation responsibilities; shorter processing times demonstrate the effectiveness of reducing intermediary administrative tiers; while lower social costs illustrate a reduction in administrative transaction costs, one of the most important indicators of governance effectiveness.
Furthermore, the application of digital technologies has enhanced transparency by enabling the entire process of receiving, processing, and delivering administrative services to be monitored through digital platforms. This allows citizens to track the progress of administrative procedures while simultaneously enabling supervisory authorities to oversee administrative performance through data-driven monitoring. As a consequence, digital governance contributes not only to more effective public administration but also to stronger mechanisms for the control of public authority.
4.4. Theoretical contributions of the two-tier model to modern state governance studies
From a theoretical perspective, the practical operation of the two-tier local government model demonstrates that governance effectiveness is not the product of mechanical organizational downsizing. Rather, it is the outcome of a more rational redesign of the institutional architecture of public authority. This finding reinforces a fundamental principle of modern state governance: the value of public institutions is determined not by the size of the administrative apparatus but by the quality of institutional design and the effectiveness with which public authority is exercised.
At the same time, practical experience indicates that decentralization can be translated into governance effectiveness only when three fundamental conditions are simultaneously satisfied: Clearly defined authority, the allocation of adequate and compatible resources and accountability ensured through effective oversight mechanisms. In the absence of any one of these conditions, decentralization is likely to become merely a formal transfer of responsibilities, increasing the administrative burden on grassroots governments without producing substantive improvements in governance quality.
Accordingly, it can be argued that the most significant contribution of the two-tier local government model lies not simply in reorganizing the administrative system but in providing an institutional experiment for the transition from a regulatory and administrative state to a developmental, service-oriented, and data-driven governance model. This also substantiates the central argument of this article: the effectiveness of state governance depends not on the number of administrative tiers, but on the quality of institutional design, the degree of substantive decentralization and the implementation capacity of the public administration.
V. CONDITIONS FOR ACHIEVING SUBSTANTIVE DECENTRALIZATION
5.1. Substantive decentralization: From the transfer of functions to the redesign of the structure of public authority
The implementation of the two-tier local government model demonstrates that adjusting the functions and responsibilities of different levels of government represents only one dimension of the decentralization process. In essence, decentralization is a process of redesigning the structure of public authority by establishing an appropriate relationship among authority, responsibility and resources.
Where authority is formally delegated without genuine decision-making power, adequate implementation resources or effective accountability mechanisms, decentralization becomes merely symbolic. Under such circumstances, grassroots governments assume additional responsibilities without possessing the institutional capacity required to perform them effectively, thereby increasing administrative burdens rather than strengthening governance capacity.
Substantive decentralization, therefore, requires the integration of decision-making authority, implementation resources, accountability and effective mechanisms for the control of public authority. This constitutes the fundamental prerequisite for enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency and long-term sustainability of the two-tier local government model.
5.2. Institutional development: The legal foundation of decentralization
In every model of decentralization, institutional arrangements play a decisive role in defining both the scope and the limits of public authority. When the powers of different levels of government are not clearly delineated, overlapping functions, administrative interference and the shifting of responsibilities are likely to occur, thereby undermining governance effectiveness.
Substantive decentralization therefore requires continued institutional development to provide a clear allocation of authority among different levels of government. Priority should be given to: (1) clearly defining the respective powers of provincial and commune-level governments; (2) standardizing mechanisms for devolution and administrative delegation based on the principles of stability, transparency and verifiability; and (3) improving institutional mechanisms for resolving jurisdictional conflicts in order to preserve the coherence of the administrative system.
A clear and coherent institutional framework provides a stable legal foundation for the effective operation of decentralization while minimizing discretionary practices in public administration.
5.3. Ensuring adequate resources: The material foundation of local autonomy
A fundamental principle of decentralization theory is that authority must be accompanied by adequate resources. Transferring responsibilities without providing sufficient financial resources, personnel and implementation capacity renders local autonomy largely nominal.
Resources encompass not only financial capacity but also organizational capability, the quality of the civil service, physical infrastructure and technological capacity. Among these, human resources play the decisive role in transforming delegated authority into effective governance outcomes.
Accordingly, ensuring the coherent allocation of resources is essential to avoiding the situation of “decentralizing responsibilities without decentralizing capacity”. Such an approach is indispensable for improving both the effectiveness and the sustainability of administrative reform.
5.4. Digital transformation: The technical foundation of modern decentralization
In the era of digital transformation, data and digital infrastructure have become the essential foundations of modern state governance. As authority is increasingly decentralized, maintaining coherence in public administration depends more heavily on integrated information systems and interoperable data infrastructures.
Digital transformation should therefore be understood not merely as a supporting tool but as a prerequisite for the effective functioning of decentralized governance. Shared data systems reduce information asymmetries, strengthen coordination among different levels of government and enhance transparency in the exercise of public authority.
Within the two-tier local government model, data serve not only administrative management purposes but also function as the institutional infrastructure connecting different levels of public authority, thereby ensuring the coherent and efficient operation of the governance system as a whole.
5.5. Control of public authority and accountability: Safeguarding the sustainability of decentralization
Decentralization can achieve its intended objectives only when accompanied by robust and transparent mechanisms for the control of public authority. Expanding local autonomy does not diminish the role of the central government; rather, it transforms the mode of oversight from direct administrative command toward governance based on legal frameworks, performance standards and data-driven supervision.
Accordingly, administrative procedures should be made transparent, performance indicator systems should be developed to evaluate implementation outcomes, oversight by competent authorities should be strengthened and digital data should be utilized to monitor and assess the performance of governments at all levels. When accountability is clearly defined and objectively measurable, decentralized authority contributes to the development of a governance system characterized by transparency, effectiveness and strong institutional oversight.
In conclusion, substantive decentralization is not simply the result of restructuring the administrative apparatus. Rather, it depends upon the coherence of institutional arrangements, adequate resource allocation, organizational capacity, digital infrastructure and effective mechanisms for the control of public authority. Only when these conditions are comprehensively ensured can decentralization become an effective mode of governance for the modern state.
VI. CHALLENGES AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER REFORM
Drawing upon the practical implementation of the two-tier local government model in recent years, several structural challenges can be identified. These challenges primarily reflect the gap between institutional design and implementation capacity within the context of modern public governance.
The most significant challenge is the increasing functional pressure placed on grassroots governments. As a growing number of responsibilities have been delegated to commune-level authorities, organizational, managerial and implementation capacities have not always been strengthened at a corresponding pace. Consequently, a form of systemic administrative overload may emerge. This issue extends beyond the mere volume of work; it reflects an imbalance between the decentralization of governmental functions and the institutional capacity available at the final stage of policy implementation.
In addition, disparities in socio-economic development across regions continue to generate uneven levels of governance effectiveness. Differences in economic conditions, technical infrastructure, and the quality of human resources have resulted in varying capacities to adopt and operate the new governance model, thereby affecting the coherence and consistency of the local government system.
Another fundamental challenge concerns the limitations of human resources in the context of digital transformation. The expansion of local governmental responsibilities requires higher levels of digital competence, data analytics capabilities and technology-enabled management skills, while the adaptation of the civil service to these new requirements has remained uneven across localities.
Furthermore, the degree of data interoperability and standardization among different levels of government and administrative sectors has yet to meet the requirements of an integrated digital governance system. This limitation weakens intergovernmental coordination and increases administrative transaction costs within the public sector.
In light of these challenges, several strategic directions may be proposed for the further refinement of the model. First, the institutional framework for decentralization should continue to be strengthened by clarifying jurisdictional boundaries and enhancing the stability of governance arrangements. At the same time, decentralization should be implemented in a more substantive manner by ensuring greater alignment between delegated authority and implementation resources, thereby avoiding merely symbolic forms of decentralization.
Concurrently, the development of digital government should be regarded as a foundational component of the modern governance model, with data serving as the core infrastructure for institutional connectivity and system-wide coordination. Equally important is the continuous improvement of human resource quality, particularly in terms of digital competencies and modern public governance capabilities, which constitutes a critical prerequisite for the effective implementation of the model.
Finally, the evaluation of governance effectiveness should evolve from predominantly qualitative assessments toward a systematic framework of performance indicators based on policy outcomes, citizen satisfaction and the efficiency of public resource utilization.
VII. CONCLUSION
The two-tier local government model can be understood as a manifestation of the profound transformation in the philosophy of modern state governance from an approach centered primarily on administrative organization toward one grounded in the institutional design of public authority. Within this transformation, decentralization is no longer viewed simply as the distribution of administrative functions among different levels of government; rather, it becomes an institutional mechanism for restructuring the relationship among public authority, responsibility, and governance effectiveness.
The effectiveness of the model therefore depends not merely on the degree of administrative streamlining or the reduction in the number of administrative tiers. More fundamentally, it relies upon the quality of the institutional framework governing decentralization, the degree of alignment between delegated authority and implementation resources, the implementation capacity of the civil service and the level of development of digital governance infrastructure.
From a broader theoretical perspective, the model reflects the ongoing transition from traditional public administration toward modern state governance, in which the state performs not only regulatory and administrative functions but also assumes the roles of facilitator, coordinator and guarantor of the effectiveness of the public governance system within the increasingly complex relationships among the state, the market and society. This transformation represents a long-term process that requires the continuous refinement of institutional arrangements, organizational structures and implementation capacity within the framework of a modern socialist rule-of-law state.
Dr. Le Thanh Huyen
REFERENCES
- Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. (2022). Resolution No. 27-NQ/TW dated 9 November 2022 on the continued development and improvement of the Socialist Rule-of-Law State of Vietnam in the new period. Hanoi, Vietnam.
- National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (2013). The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam.
- Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
- OECD. (2019). Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- Rondinelli, D. A. (1981). Government decentralization in comparative perspective: Theory and practice in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 47(2), 133–145.
- Government of Vietnam. (2021). Resolution No. 76/NQ-CP dated 15 July 2021 promulgating the Master Program on State Administrative Reform for the 2021–2030 Period. Hanoi, Vietnam.
- Ministry of Home Affairs. (2024). Public Administration Reform Index (PAR Index) Report 2024. Hanoi, Vietnam.
- National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (2015). Law on the Organization of Local Government (Law No. 77/2015/QH13). Hanoi, Vietnam.
- National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (2019). Law No. 47/2019/QH14 Amending and Supplementing a Number of Articles of the Law on the Organization of the Government and the Law on the Organization of Local Government. Hanoi, Vietnam.
- World Bank. (2017). World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law. Washington, DC: World Bank.
