Myrdal and 'Doi Moi'?
From pietro@ruc.dk Fri May 21 11:15:03 2004
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:28:58 +0200
From: Pietro P.Masina <pietro@ruc.dk>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Myrdal and 'doi moi'?
Dear all,
I have a question regarding the influence of scholars like Gunnar Myrdal and others promoting 'alternative' development strategies for developing countries on the Vietnamese reform process. I found evidence that the Chinese leadership was somehow inspired by Myrdal in starting the reforms from agriculture in order to create a 'virtuous circle' that could sustain as much as possible harmonic economic growth and reduce the imbalances resulting from economic liberalization. Did something similar happen in Vietnam at the beginning of 'doi moi'? How much alternative economic theories were explicit in the policy debate?
Fforde and de Vylder in their From Plan to Market mention that, when doi moi was launched, the party argued that the state should become like the director of an orchestra. This seems to refer to the famous sentence by Myrdal for which to establish a narrow correlation between investment and growth was like to judge the quality of an orchestra by the number of violins.
My question refers to a highly debate issue. Was the reform process only a reactive response from the party/government to external and national events (end of Soviet aid and trade, economic crisis, grassroots opposition to the land collectivization in the South, etc.) or was also a proactive process? Was the reform process (still is) only characterized by a trial and error, step by step approach as it is normally argued or competing economic theories influenced the policy debate?
I think this question still makes sense for the present. Apparently the government agrees with the reform strategy outlined by the World Bank and approved as Comprehensive Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy, but de facto moves slowly in the implementation of the most painful reforms. My wonder is how much behind this 'passive' resistance there are alternative visions, apart from the need to defend entrenched interests (like those of SOEs) with strong connections with policy-making.
Please forgive me for this quite naive question. I have tried to answer this question for years. I read quite extensively and made a large number of interviews, but my perplexity remains. Now I am completing the manuscript for a book to be published by Routledge as ' Vietnam's Development Strategies' and I would very much appreciate to get a final feedback'.
Best regards
Pietro
------------------------------------------------------
Pietro P. Masina, PhD
Associate Professor
Dept. of Social Sciences, House 23.2
Roskilde University, P. O. Box 260
4000 Roskilde - Denmark
Tel. +45 46742507 - Fax +45 46743082
Mobile +45 20219929
http://www.ssc.ruc.dk/homepages/pietro/
From hhtai@fas.harvard.edu Fri May 21 11:34:03 2004
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:28:58 -0400
From: Tam Tai <hhtai@fas.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Myrdal and 'doi moi'?
Hmm. I'm not able to answer Pietro's question, but I would suspect that in the case of China, the influence of Gunnar Myrdal was more direct because his son Jan became a China scholar. In the case of Vietnam, it is unclear to me whether Myrda'ls influence was direct or indirect, and how much there was of it.
Hue-Tam Ho Tai
From jhannah@u.washington.edu Fri May 21 11:36:27 2004
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 02:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Hannah <jhannah@u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Myrdal and 'doi moi'?
Although I cannot answer about the influence of Myrdal or others, I too have many questions about the reform process, first as conceived and then later as it is carried out. What is the "realnature" of the reforms?
For instance, Doi MOi pre-dates international multi-lateral agency support, and therefore the influence of the World Bank is probably a later phenomenon. I am told by insiders in Hanoi that the "Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy" (CPRGS) is in fact a parallel document to the 10- and 5-year developmnet plans. Different units undertake tasks and projects under the CPRGS than do under the development plans, keeping the World Bank and the CPRGS at arm's length from "real" policy. Or so I am told.
Another interesting point is that the "G" in CPRGS is unique to Vietnam. "Growth" was made a foundation of this plan to encompass a Vietnamese (or, as some say, a Japanese) vision of development that centers of economic growth, not just poverty reduction.
This is certainly not my field, but I think it is a rich one for more in-depth research.
Joe Hannah
From mchale@gwu.edu Fri May 21 11:36:48 2004
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 13:08:12 -0400
From: mchale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Myrdal and Vietnam
Dear list,
This is pure speculation, but I wonder if the Alva and Gunnar Myrdal did influence programs in Vietnam simply by their role in shaping Swedish thinking and practice on development assistance. As I understand it, their ideas influenced the creation of SIDA. There was a time, not that long ago, when SIDA was one of the few NGOs in Vietnam, and it has had a long relationship with the Vietnamese government.
Shawn McHale
Shawn McHale
Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
Associate Director, Sigur Center for Asian Studies
Elliott School of International Affairs
The George Washington University
e-mail address: mchale@gwu.edu
From dieuhien@u.washington.edu Fri May 21 11:36:53 2004
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 00:45:45 GMT
From: Hoang t. Dieu-Hien <dieuhien@u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Myrdal and 'doi moi'?
Dear list,
I'm far from being an expert on Myrdal, but, if I remember correctly, 'doi moi' was officially launch at the Sixth Party Congress in 1986, when Viet Nam was deep in isolation from the international community. The embargo was firmly in place. I am not certain that even SIDA, the Swedish government bilateral aid agency, was active in Viet Nam before this event took place. It was certainly here in the late 1980s, before nearly all international NGOs and other bilateral agencies.
Before the official launching of 'doi moi' in 1986, there was a series of letters to the editor of the Nhan Dan, published on Nhan Dan, criticizing government's policy and suggesting substantive changes. The letters were signed by NVL, assumed by everyone to be Nguyen Van Linh who became the party chief at the VI Party Congress. I do not know if the fact of who NVL was was ever confirmed, but the letters stirred up the pot and started heated discussions in and out of the Party and the government.
So, back to the the part of the original question of whether 'doi moi' was a reaction to external pressures and factors, I'd like to think minimal and indirect, if any. I'd like to give some in the Vietnamese leadership credit for seeing that 10 years after the end of their big victory against the Americans, the country was not "gia`u ho'n, dde.p ho'n" (richer and more beautiful) and the people were not "no a^'m" (adequately fed and clothed) but the absolute opposite. I believe this was the strongest impetus for the 'doi moi' policies. Shortly after the VI Party Congress, through the work of pioneers (in the United States) such as John McAuliff (US-Indochina Reconciliation Project), Mary MacDonnell (SSRC), and Ed Cooperman (US-Vietnam Scientific Cooperation Association) handfuls of trusted Vietnamese in influential positions were able to come to the US and exchange ideas with American intellectuals. (Actually, during these early years, the exchanges were more like information gathering for the Vietnamese so that they can go home, process the information, then discuss with their colleagues on what's good, what's bad, what can be implemented in Viet Nam, what's not appropriate, what should be done right away and what have to wait, etc... On the American side, the work cost Cooperman his life in 1988 by the hands of Overseas Vietnamese militants in Southern California. Judy Ladinsky took up his torch after that.)
In short, in my opinion, 'doi moi' was mostly a Vietnamese initiative in reaction to internal observation of the failure to manage the country and achieving the Party's stated goals of building a Viet Nam richer, more beautiful and making the Vietnamese people more adequately fed and clothed. I do not deny the existence of outside influence, but I do not think it was the main driving force to the birth of 'doi moi.' However, external influences became much stronger in the implementation process as the country opened itself up more and more.
All these opinions are just that, from my own interest in and involvement with Viet Nam those days. I'd be interested in results of research into the roots and machinery of 'doi moi' policies. Thanks for the question and discussion.
Dieu Hien
From OJHM.Salemink@fsw.vu.nl Fri May 21 11:36:58 2004
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 15:46:08 +0200
From: Oscar Salemink <OJHM.Salemink@fsw.vu.nl>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: Myrdal and 'doi moi'?
Through the years of the US embargo Vietnam has had relations with western countries, organizations and people. I took out an old (1991) report I did for Novib (now Dutch Oxfam).
SIDA (the official Swedish International Development Agency) began to provide aid to the DRV during the war years, and increased its bilateral aid program to reunified Vietnam after 1975. The "flagship project" was the Bai Bang paper mill which sucked up huge amounts of resources and at its high point in the mid-1980s employed over 600 (!) Swedish expatriate experts. Many people who have lived in Hanoi during the 1990s probably still remember the Swedish village" later turned into the "Bai Bang hotel". Adam Fforde was at one time involved as an expert, so he could undoubtedly provide many more details. During that time, there was also a major Finnish aid project involving a shipwharf in Hai Phong which required a major expatriate presence. Australia has also been an early bilateral donor. For 1989, my figures gave $ 53 million from Sweden, $ 11 million from Finland and $ 2 million from Australia, in ongoing programs (total non-Communist bilateral aid then was estimated at $ 69 million).
In terms of multilateral aid, the UN system has been present in Vietnam through these pre-Doi Moi years. In fact, Vietnam was one of the main recipients of UNDP aid (on average $ 20 million annually since 1975) with UNDP being the lead agency for the UN system. The amount increased after Doi Moi: $ 66 million UN aid in 1988 (perhaps related to the famine?) and $ 45 million in 1989. But throughout the pre- and post-Doi Moi period there has been a rather numerous UN staff in Vietnam.
Even NGOs were active in Vietnam during the pre-Doi Moi years, although the activities were limited to solidarity-type NGOs and involved little semi-permanent expatriate presence. This began to change from 1988 onward, and by 1991 there were 120 international NGOs actually working or preparing to work in Vietnam.
In other words, there were more contacts between Vietnam and the West than a US-Vietnam prism (focusing on the embargo) could discern. This non-threatening Western presence in Vietnam may have alleviated some of the concerns about opening up. But to come back to the original question about Gunnar Myrdal, I do not know whether he had any influence at all on initial decisions RE Doi Moi. I agree with Dieu Hien: I was under the impression that economic failure and domestic need prompted the decisions.
Oscar Salemink
PS: I remember that "NVL" was shorthand for "no'i va` la`m" but everybody speculated that these were the initials of Nguyen Van Linh.
From dieuhien@u.washington.edu Fri May 21 11:37:13 2004
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 00:04:30 GMT
From: Hoang t. Dieu-Hien <dieuhien@u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Myrdal and 'doi moi'?
Thank you, Oscar, for the correction.
Joe reminded me, after reading my hasty note, of SIDA and UNICEF's involvement in VN in pre-Doi Moi period. However small in number and narrow in scope, there was a non-communist aid presence in VN during those years. I neglected, too, to acknowledge the possibility of information gathering trips to other developed nations immediately post-1986. My post represents an American ethnocentrism that cripples our knowledge of the world and how it works.
About the increased NGO activities in the 1988-1991 period, most were uncoordinated fly-by-night and getting-a-foot-in-the-door aid activities. I doubt there were much theoretical development exchanges among those. A very few, however, facilitated interactions among Vietnamese policy makers, social science scholars, educators and other intellectuals and their western counterparts. I have no doubt these exchanges helped shape the way Doi Moi was and is being implemented.
Dieu-Hien
From NLan@ifc.org Fri May 21 11:42:50 2004
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:15:57 +0700
From: Lan Van Nguyen <NLan@ifc.org>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Myrdal and 'doi moi'?
In my opinion, in order to answer the question whether the reform process was only a reactive response to external/ national events or was also an active process, we need to define clearly what we mean by "reactive" and "proactive". "Reactive" and "proactive" are not culture free. A Western meaning of "proactive" is often associated with the concept of competitive ideas, selling ideas, public debates, formalization, and so on. If you take a Western perspective, you may find it hard to find any "proactive" in the Vietnam. The writings of Max Weber (still) provide some insight into this (I believe). Weber wrote "Confucian rationalism meant rational adjustment to the world, Puritan rationalism meant rational mastery of the world". While a Puritan could live 'in' the world and not be part 'of' it," the Confucian ideal was to live "in" the world as a well-adjusted part of it. Vietnamese tend to adjust to, not master of the world. There is no a parallel word for "idea" in Vietnamese. Max
Weber is a Western anyway!
I believe that each country has its own way of governing itself, own way of seeing and reacting to the world. In my view, one needs to understand Vietnamese culture, its political system and culture and talk to people involved to understand what the people involved mean and also what the society means by "proactive" and "reactive" before giving answers the question. Fforde and de Vylder provided with evidence to support their argument that the reform in Vietnam was a bottom-up and not top-down process, but I am far from convinced. They did an excellent job in providing "formal" or "hard" evidence (from newspapers, written documents, decrees and so on), but I believe there was much behind the scenes.
A direct link between Gunnar Myrdal and the reform process in Vietnam would be too simplistic. Starting the reforms from agriculture is not hard to understand. I understand that it's easy to that say now, but from my observation (as a farmer), if asked any farmers at the time, they would tell you that the collectivization system did not work. People did not care about "common" farms, they did not work hard. "cha chung khong ai khoc" . 90% of Vietnamese were farmers and were on the verge of starvation. So it was commonsense that the reforms started with agriculture.
Best regards,
Lan
From m.digregorio@fordfound.org Fri May 21 12:34:58 2004
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 04:02:33 -0700
From: Michael DiGregorio <m.digregorio@fordfound.org>
Reply-To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: Myrdal and 'doi moi'?
I would like to bring up the Myrdal discussion again - but with a different personage in mind. Janos Kornai and others have pointed out the influence of Gailbraith on economic policy in Eastern Europe in late 1970s and through the 1980s. His analysis of the advanced capitalist society as being composed of corporate monopolies and oligopolies (see Sweezy and Baran as well), alongside a second economy of small producers and retailers was instrumental in opening the economies to small scale, petty capitalists. This led to many of the same phenomena that have been reported in Vietnam.
Given the number of Vietnamese who were studying in Eastern Europe at this time, what are the chances that Gailbraith traveled with them on their return journeys either directly (i.e. they could connect these theories to Gailbraith ) or derivatively (i.e. they learned some form of his theory second hand)?
Mike
Michael DiGregorio, PhD
Program Officer
Arts & Culture, Education & Scholarship
The Ford Foundation
198 Tran Quang Khai Street, Suites 1502-4
Hanoi, Vietnam
Tel: 84-4-934-9766
Fax: 84-4-934-9765