Vietnam has moved from simply measuring data to turning it into strategy, Professor Bert George believes the shift offers a compelling case study in governance innovation
4-MIN READ4-MINAdvertising partnerPublished: 12:00am, 31 Aug 2026[The content of this article has been produced by our advertising partner.]
For more than a decade, Vietnam has built one of Southeast Asia’s most data-driven public administrations. Ministries track performance indicators. Provinces report standardised metrics. The central government aggregates information from different localities.
But, according to Professor Bert GEORGE, Professor at the Department of Public and International Affairs (PIA) and Associate Dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS) at City University of Hong Kong (CityUHK), the big question is no longer about how much data Vietnam collects, but about what strategic value the data can bring.
“Vietnam has mostly focused on its operational capacity,” says George. “But now we have performance indicators across provinces, cities and central ministries.”
The investment in data infrastructure has paid off. Few developing countries have built such an extensive system so quickly. Yet success has created a new challenge: turning operational strength into strategic direction.
From Metrics to Meaning
George suggests that the next emphasis of reform lies in shifting from measurement to data empowered national strategy. At the centre of that transition is the formation of a consolidated strategic commission, designed to align government activity around national priorities.
“They’ve done several initiatives which have been very successful, including appointing a central commission for strategy and policy,” George says. Rather than allowing ministries and provinces to pursue disconnected agendas, the commission links countrywide goals directly to Vietnam’s data systems.
“They’re not measuring for the sake of measurement … it’s really about embedding data strategies into the overall whole-of-government strategic approach.”
George describes the shift as “quite a game changer”, and one that has been particularly evident over the past two years.
Governance Intelligence
Moving from operational to strategic capacity also requires a new kind of thinking. “Policymakers are looking for governance intelligence,” George explains. That means drawing insight not only from central ministries but also from local governments, universities, businesses and civil society.
Many countries struggle with siloed bureaucracies and fragmented data systems. Vietnam’s reform effort has connected actors—which include corporations, politicians, academics and participants from the public and private sectors—while also standardising data flows and building oversight into the system itself.
Entrepreneurship in a One-party System
These reforms are unfolding within a one-party political system often portrayed as rigid. George points out, however, that the reality is more pragmatic.
“A big part of what they’re doing is also empowering the private sector,” he says, adding that the broader strategy is to reduce the dominance of the public sector and create more space for entrepreneurs and innovation.
Universities and international partners have also been brought into the process. “They have several universities and international partners working with them … and I think that has really been a recipe for success,” says George.
At the same time, officials insist that modernisation must reflect national identity. “We’re not just trying to implement Western systems,” he adds. “They are creating a Vietnam system which reflects its values.”
George describes the country’s emerging model as a whole-of-system approach built on three pillars: integrated strategy, talent development, and trustworthy institutions.
Regarding the first pillar, George explains: “One of the mistakes many countries make is that they have hundreds of strategies. Everyone has a plan, and often these plans contradict each other.” Vietnam’s response is integration—aligning actors around a shared purpose.
The second pillar is talent development. “You want to have the best people,” he says. Effective reform implementation requires a professional and strategically-minded civil service that can compete effectively with the private sector for skilled workers.
The third is trust. “What do international companies like the most? Stability, clarity, transparency.” A predictable regulatory environment, George argues, is essential for both domestic confidence and foreign investment.
He is candid on corruption, admitting that it remains a “huge issue”, but he believes that tackling it requires not only enforcement, but also the use of incentives, proper compensation, and professionalisation.
Despite Vietnam’s progress, George warns against being hyper-focused on key performance indicators (KPIs).
“They have a KPI-driven system,” he says. Metrics can strengthen accountability, but too much reliance on them can also discourage experimentation. “KPIs have their value, but reformers should be very careful about what you’re throwing away.”
Continuous Strategising
In today’s rollercoaster environment, George believes Vietnam’s reform will depend on continuous strategising: “Keep stable what ought to be stable, and keep flexible what ought to be flexible.” That means protecting long-term values while allowing policies and systems to evolve. Governments, he argues, need dynamic capabilities and flexibility rather than rigid multi-year plans.
He explains that the collaboration between Vietnamese leaders and academics and expert support from the likes of CityUHK and AVSE Global is a key enabler to them. Mobilising support from Vietnamese academics and experts abroad is a smart strategy.
Lessons Beyond Hanoi
Vietnam’s political system is unique, but George believes its experience carries broader lessons for other countries.
First, sequence matters: build operational capacity, then connect it to strategy. Data should serve purpose, not replace it.
Second, integration is essential. Without it, agencies will optimise for narrow indicators instead of national outcomes. Third, governments should seek governance intelligence, not just tighter central control. Finally, it's vital that stability and flexibility coexist.
Vietnam still faces challenges, from corruption risk to bureaucratic rigidity, but its shift from measurement to meaning offers a compelling case study in governance innovation.
At a time when many governments are awash in data yet struggle to act decisively, Vietnam’s experience suggests that the future may belong not to those who collect the most information, but to those who can turn it into strategy and adapt when the world changes.
