Private economy: Resolution 68 needs decisive KPI assignments and accountability

DNHN - Resolution 68-NQ/TW, issued by the Politburo in May 2025, marks a turning point in the perception and development orientation of VIETNAM’s economy.

For the first time, the private sector has been clearly identified as one of the three main drivers of growth, backed by eight groups of core tasks.

From “Policy declaration”...

Resolution 68-NQ/TW is seen as a milestone in elevating the role of the private sector in Vietnam. With eight major directions, including property rights protection, ensuring freedom of business, creating a fair competitive environment, improving access to basic resources (land, capital, human resources), promoting innovation, accelerating digital transformation, developing a green economy, and strengthening linkages between private enterprises, FDI and state-owned enterprises, the document reflects a forward-looking policy vision aligned with modern economic trends.

From the perspective of institutional economics, setting policy orientation is only the first step in reform. Any development strategy, if not institutionalized into clear operating mechanisms with enforcement capacity, risks remaining at the level of “declaration.” What businesses now expect is not simply the reaffirmation of the private sector’s role on paper, but the transformation of those orientations into committed, stable actions capable of managing policy risks in the medium and long term.

Initial efforts from ministries, sectors, and local governments, such as the Ministry of Industry and Trade issuing an action plan, Hanoi City implementing programs around the eight task groups, or the IV Board developing an NQ68 index, are positive signs of political will. Yet businesses remain cautious. Manufacturers want streamlined and transparent procedures for borrowing and land leasing. Tech companies expect a truly level playing field. Large corporations demand a legal framework stable for at least a decade to ensure long-term investment efficiency. Different in scope and sector, all converge on one key expectation: policy trust.

A deeper policy analysis requires identifying three core bottlenecks that have long held back the private sector’s breakthrough and the overall business environment in Vietnam.

First, regulatory shifts and inconsistencies in enforcement across government levels—especially during administrative boundary mergers risk creating “soft institutional uncertainty,” difficult to predict and manage. This has slowed long-term investment decisions, pushing many firms into defensive rather than expansion strategies.

Second, the complexity and overlap of administrative procedures. Overlapping inspections, inconsistent regulations across sectors and provinces, not only increase costs but also generate a sense of opacity and unfairness. This is why many experts propose an independent oversight mechanism for inspections, alongside comprehensive digitalization of procedures, transparent workflows, and stronger accountability. Progress is being made on this front, but sustained momentum is essential.

Third, the weakness of intermediary institutions representing business voices. Many industry associations remain passive, lacking policy advocacy capacity and failing to become effective bridges between the state and private sectors. In today’s competitive global economy, going it alone leaves firms, especially SMEs, vulnerable to policy or market shocks.

International experience shows that economies with strong private sectors share three key conditions: a stable and predictable legal framework, an innovation-supporting ecosystem, and a strategy of selectively nurturing “champion” private firms through targeted investment.

Israel builds its startup ecosystem through state R&D budgets, university–business linkages, and venture funds for commercialization. The US combines federal-level regulatory sandboxes with tax incentives for R&D. Singapore, via Temasek, ensures fair competition while managing SOE participation. The UAE reinvests oil revenues into AI and new tech, turning itself into a global tech hub within a decade.

Their common ground is not the scale of intervention but the consistency, selectivity, and perseverance in private sector strategy, focusing resources on firms with regional or global competitiveness, making them “flagships” for strategic industries.

For Vietnam, the challenge is not only to improve the business environment broadly but to make strategic choices in depth, providing genuine partnership, bold opportunities, and stable legal frameworks to private enterprises with a long-term vision. The goal is to develop large-scale private conglomerates with regional competitiveness, similar to South Korea’s chaebols or Singapore’s diversified groups.

...Towards measurement and accountability

For the eight task groups of Resolution 68 to enter real life, VIETNAM cannot continue linear, traditional policymaking. Instead, it requires a national program management model where goals are tied to key performance indicators (KPIs), specific implementation responsibilities, and real-time monitoring and feedback mechanisms.

At the institutional level, ensuring property rights, encouraging fair competition, and digitalizing the entire public administration cycle must move beyond slogans, becoming codified regulations with clear enforcement. Digitalization must be more than adopting technology; it represents a fundamental shift from rule-based management to data-based governance, measured by deadlines and quantifiable accountability.

Financially, the private economy development fund should serve as a strategic fiscal tool rather than a supplementary channel. Its operations must be transparent, with private sector representation on the investment board, and outcomes tied to measurable KPIs: number of firms supported successfully, number of innovations commercialized, or the proportion of private capital leveraged from public investments. In parallel, developing long-term capital markets via corporate bond issuance, IPOs, and domestic venture funds is crucial to reducing reliance on short-term credit.

At the local level, models like “CEO task forces,” where administrative leaders directly resolve business issues, must be institutionalized. SME support centers must evolve beyond paperwork advice to deliver high-quality services: ESG reporting, green finance access, IP consulting, or FDI supply chain linkages.

The crux is measurement and public disclosure. The NQ68 index cannot remain input-based (e.g., number of workshops, business participants) but must focus on outputs and impacts. These should be updated quarterly or annually, published transparently on digital platforms, and linked with budget oversight systems to tie public spending directly to policy effectiveness.

The “VIETNAM Private Economy Forum” must move beyond formality, becoming the venue for publishing national KPIs, fostering direct policy dialogue between government and business, and forging two-way commitments between state and private sectors.

Yet no matter how refined policy becomes, if private enterprises themselves do not adapt, their absorption capacity will remain limited. This requires restructuring along two dimensions: internal governance modernization and market strategy.

First, financial transparency and corporate governance standards are indispensable—not only for accessing long-term capital but also for building market credibility in a global environment where ESG standards are increasingly non-tariff barriers. ESG reporting is fast becoming mandatory for firms seeking entry into FDI supply chains, IPOs, or international fundraising.

Second, private firms must shift from “isolated competition” to sectoral alliances and value-chain linkages. Partnering with FDI, SOEs, or peers enhances efficiency and resilience against policy and market risks.

Most importantly, a mindset of “compliance by design”, embedding legal and regulatory requirements into product, process, and technology design, must become a core competency. This reduces compliance risks and enhances outcome measurement. Without robust monitoring, with some localities clinging to administrative or protectionist mindsets, policy efforts risk dilution, and the progressive nature of Resolution 68 could be lost.

Hence, establishing an independent monitoring mechanism is essential, empowering competent intermediaries (research institutes, professional organizations, business associations) to assess implementation, publish data, and link incentive budgets to actual outcomes, not input-based reports.

Dr. Nguyễn Thúy Lan

Vietnamese version: https://doanhnghiephoinhap.vn/kinh-te-tu-nhan-nghi-quyet-68-can-quyet-liet-giao-chi-tieu-kpi-va-trach-nhiem-giai-trinh-114553.html