When provincial cities are reclassified as grassroots-level governments, their institutional space remains intact, while the Party’s policy of establishing a two-tier local government system can still be effectively implemented.

VietNamNet is pleased to present this analysis by Dr. Nguyen Si Dung, former Deputy Head of the National Assembly Office, on the ongoing reorganization of administrative units and the proposal to build a two-tier local government model.

One of the institutional reform directions under review is restructuring local government into two levels - provincial and grassroots - by removing the district level. This is a sensible policy to streamline the administrative apparatus and enhance local governance efficiency and effectiveness.

However, this raises a critical question: If the district level is abolished, what happens to provincial cities that currently function as district-level administrative units? Should these cities be eliminated and replaced by a set of wards reporting directly to the province? Would such a model be feasible and effective, or would transforming these cities into grassroots-level governments both streamline the system and strengthen governance?

These are the questions that need addressing during the institutionalization of the Party's two-tier local government policy.

A city cannot be merely a collection of wards

While removing the district level in rural areas may be reasonable due to the potential for merging communes and relatively simple governance needs, doing the same in urban areas by merging wards into a “new grassroots government” in place of the city level is fundamentally incompatible with modern urban governance.

Unlike rural areas, cities are highly integrated systems, interlinked in terms of infrastructure, transportation, environment, utilities, public services, and economic value chains. Managing such a complex space requires a government tier with legal status, resource autonomy, and organizational capacity.

Even if these new “grassroots governments” formed from merged wards are granted significant authority, such fragmentation cannot support the coherent management required in modern cities. Urban systems need unified planning and regulation, which cannot be achieved if each ward makes its own disconnected decisions on zoning, infrastructure, or the environment.

Urban realities in Vietnam

Thu Duc City, home to over 1.2 million people and boasting a GRDP of over USD 12 billion in 2023, is envisioned as Ho Chi Minh City’s hub for innovation, finance, and technology. Breaking Thu Duc into a handful of separate wards would obliterate its strategic vision and derail coordinated planning, infrastructure development, traffic regulation, and investment attraction.

Ha Long City, with a population exceeding 300,000 and welcoming over 8 million tourists annually, cannot be effectively managed by a few merged ward-level governments. Protecting Ha Long Bay, managing international tourism, coordinating coastal infrastructure, and overseeing environmental issues all require a self-governing city-level authority.

Vinh City, with approximately 550,000 residents and functioning as the economic center of the North Central region, cannot entrust logistics coordination, digital economic development, or strategic planning solely to ward-level authorities.

These examples show that even with enhanced powers, ward-level units cannot replace the city government's overarching coordination role. Vietnam currently has nearly 100 such cities - each a powerful locomotive driving national development.

A suitable solution to realize the Party's policy

To effectively institutionalize the Party’s vision for a two-tier local government system (province and grassroots) while preserving governance efficiency, the appropriate policy solution is to designate provincial cities as grassroots-level governments.

This change preserves the institutional integrity of these cities while implementing the Party’s policy effectively.

Under this model, wards would become administrative offices under city management, without separate People's Councils or People's Committees.

International lessons: No country eliminates cities as independent governments

It’s worth noting that in the administrative reforms of developed nations, no country has ever eliminated cities as independent levels of government. Even amid large-scale restructuring, cities have retained and often enhanced their role as indispensable entities in modern urban governance.

Globally, cities are typically organized as grassroots-level governments, regardless of their population size. This ensures streamlined, citizen-centric, and agile administration.

Paris, France - with over 2 million residents - is a grassroots-level government reporting to the Île-de-France region and the central government. It has its own city council and mayor. Though Paris is divided into arrondissements (districts), these are administrative units without independent authority. All decision-making powers reside with the Paris City Council and Mayor.

Berlin, Germany, while also a state, does not grant its boroughs independent governance - they are administrative units of the city.

Tokyo, Japan - home to nearly 14 million people - is divided into special wards that handle some administrative functions, but full governing authority rests with the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the city-level authority.

These examples demonstrate that large populations do not necessitate an intermediate government tier. On the contrary, designating cities as the final level in the local government hierarchy enhances administrative efficiency and effectiveness.

Thus, international experience supports the Party’s vision: convert provincial cities from district-level to grassroots-level governments, while wards become administrative offices without autonomous governing structures.

Institutionalizing the Party’s policy in a scientific and practical manner is crucial. The goal is not only streamlining the apparatus, but also enhancing its capacity and effectiveness.

Dr. Nguyen Si Dung

Former Deputy Head of the National Assembly Office