Tuong VuUniversity of Oregon

February 2009

Political economy of Vietnam's response to Avian Influenza

Sources

About 70 interviews (2005, 2008) with policymakers, local officials, businesses, journalists, academics, foreign experts, representatives from donors’ organizations, ordinary farmers

Two primary newspapers (2003-2008):Tuoi Tre (Youth): largest newspaper in VietnamNong Thon Ngay Nay (The Countryside Today):

newspaper of the Farmers’ Union, devoted to rural issues

Other newspapers and publications

Why Vietnam?Crucial country on the global front:

Seven waves of outbreaks with 2,500 outbreaks (10x Indonesia, 2x Egypt)

52 casualties (cf. 122 in Indonesia, 22 in Egypt)$115 m. in aid or $1.35 per capita ($0.57 for

Indonesia and $0.27 for Egypt)

Two paradoxes:Why poor but picked most expensive strategy

(comprehensive vaccination)?Why largest aid recipient and toughest strategy

but also experienced highest number of outbreaks in recurrent waves?

Simplified timeline of Avian InfluenzaDate Events

06/2003 Govt detected early cases of AI but decided to cover up

12/2003-1/2004

Newspapers broke the news of massive outbreaks, forcing government to announce the epidemic. Donors rushed in to offer help

4/2005 Comprehensive vaccination was authorized

7/2005 “Hanoi Core Statement” was issued

1/2006 Govt issued Red Book

4/2006 Task force set up to implement One-UN

5/2006 Govt issued Green Book

1/2009 Govt quietly changed vaccination program to focus on high risk areas

2/2009 Another wave of outbreaks occur in 8 provinces

Political economic contextOrganizational and institutional domination of

Party-state over society: policy serves state interests

Extensive patronage links between central and provincial politicians: ineffective central policies and endemic corruption and wastes in public spending

Marginalization of farmers who account for 70% of population: farmers likely to resist policy

Increasing dependence on foreign aid and investment: big role for donors to play

Triple neglects of agriculture, livestock, poultry: AI hit where government was least prepared

WHO

Politburo

MoH MoF

MARD

World Bank

FAO

Media

USDA

Provgov

Statefarms

Farmers

Traders

USAID

OIE

JICA

HCMCGov

Cargill

Communegov

WHO

JapfaCP

Merial

Urbanconsumers

Figure 1: Mapping Actor Networks in AI Response

District gov

Mass orgs

Prime Minister

Power networksForeign donors-Central officials:

Relatively close, mutually dependent relationshipMost powerful network making policy without

much public inputs or accountabilityState-owned media:

Powerful player, almost always producing effective propaganda serving central government

Ministry of Agriculture-Poultry businesses:Close only with regards state-owned firms (small

and weak)Cold, sometimes hostile, relationship with foreign

firms (dominating market)

Local governments: Forced to play along with central policyGenerally weak capacity and weak incentives to comply Politicians in HCMC were exceptions

Farmers: Resisted policy when they could but few protested

publiclyCoverage of vaccination was only 50% due in part to

resistance

Dominant narrativesPower narrative:

Created by central politicians, targeting local officials and public

Problem defined as complacent local officials and public

Functions: to generate compliance with harsh central policies, to blame local officials and ignorant public for problems with policy, to re-affirm central power

Technical narrative:Created by donors and Vietnamese officials

(dominated by vets)Functions: to identify technical problems and

implement solutions, to disburse aidCharacter: politically correct

Critical narrativesPopulist narrative:

Created by progressive elements of mediaFunctions: to express sympathy with farmers, to

assert media’s role in monitoring officials and policies

Character: rare, brief, and criticisms limited to individual officials below the rank of Minister

Critical narrative:expressed in private, informal conversations 3 most common themes: corruption, criticisms of

central policies and poor relationship between government and experts, tension between Vietnamese and foreigners

Other narratives

Nationalist narrative:Created by central officials and state mediaFunctions: to justify sacrifices to comply with

central policies, to distract public from problems with policy, to project central leaders as national heroes

Protectionist narrative:Created by a few poultry businesses (mostly

foreign-owned)Functions: to call for assistance with losses and

protection from competition

Conclusion Why poor country but expensive strategy?

Donors pushed for action, backed with huge funds, and officials saw benefits in supporting donors

Policy was made in a top-down manner with little public discussion and little regard for farmers’ interests

Why big money and tough policy but most outbreaks? Significant evidence of farmers’ resistance to

vaccination and other policiesOutbreaks may have been perpetuated by

vaccination (in part due to low-quality vaccines)

Recommendations

Hanoi Core Statement (2005):“Ownership”: “The Government of Vietnam

exercises leadership in developing and implementing its 5 Year Socio-Economic Development Plan (SEDP) through a broad consultative processes which integrates overseas development aid into mainstream planning. The Government of Vietnam further strengthens its leadership role in co-ordinating aid at all levels.”

“Mutual Accountability”: “The Government of Vietnam and donors jointly assess, and carry out annual independent reviews, on progress in implementing agreed commitments on aid effectiveness and improved development outcomes through existing and increasingly objective country level mechanisms. Donors provide timely, transparent and comprehensive information on aid flows and programme intentions to enable Government of Vietnam to present comprehensive budget reports to legislatures and citizens, and co-ordinate aid more effectively”

Donors should bring accountability back to aid management: Mistake to give government full ownership and

leadershipMistake not to make government accountable to its

people