Civil society in Vietnam: A comparative study of civil society organizations in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh city
Civil Society in Vietnam:
A Comparative Study of Civil Society Organizations
in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City
William Taylor, Nguyễn Thu Hằng, Phạm Quang Tú,. Huỳnh Thị Ngọc Tuyết
HANOI, OCTOBER 2012
Civil Society in Vietnam:
A Comparative Study of Civil Society Organizations
in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City
William Taylor, Nguyễn Thu Hằng, Phạm Quang Tú, Huỳnh Thị Ngọc Tuyết
Hanoi
October 2012
FOREWORD
Civil society is an integral part of societies everywhere, the arena where citizens come together
to engage in issues affecting their lives and the development of their communities. Since
opening an office in Hanoi in 2000, The Asia Foundation has supported a series of research,
capacity building and public participation programs aimed at facilitating more productive state-
society relations in Vietnam. The Foundation has assisted Vietnamese civil society
organizations (CSOs) to conduct public consultation to inform the drafting of numerous laws
for example, while our longstanding partnership with the Office of the National Assembly
(ONA) has led to pioneering training for the NA deputies on public consultation skills and the
now posted for public comments.
Recognizing that civil society development is nascent in Vietnam, in 2008 the Foundation
carried out a survey and in-depth interviews with 79 registered NGOs to understand their
organizational structures and needs. The assessment identified the rapid growth of the sector in
recent years with many of the NGOs established only in the past decade. It also provided the
Foundation with baseline data on NGOs’ operations, informing our subsequent development
and implementation of an NGO capacity building program in organizational development,
public participation mobilization, and policy advocacy between 2009 and 2011.
In the course of supporting organizational capacity building and policy advocacy initiatives as
well as undertaking research on philanthropy in Vietnam, it became clear that to us there are
interesting differences in the characteristics of CSOs depending on their location.1 These
intriguing glimpses of differences between civil society in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City led the
Foundation to carry out this comparative study of CSOs in Vietnam’s two major metropolitan
areas. Given that the majority of CSOs are located in Hanoi and HCMC, an in-depth
understanding of these organizations can provide an understanding of civil society as a whole.
Hanoi and HCMC are also the political and commercial centers of Vietnam respectively, and a
comparative analysis of strengths and weaknesses of CSO operations can thus shed light on the
different historical contexts, policy environments, organizational models, and funding
possibilities in these two cities. It is our hope that this research will contribute to the small but
growing knowledge base on Vietnamese civil society, as well as informing relevant policies
and initiatives aimed at supporting civil society development in Vietnam.
William Taylor and Nguyễn Thu Hằng from The Asia Foundation took the lead in working
with a committed group of Vietnamese researchers in Hanoi and HCMC to design and
implement this research. The survey work and analysis conducted by the research teams led by
Phạm Quang Tú and Huỳnh Thị Ngọc Tuyết were invaluable, with the contribution of Hoàng
Xuân Diễm, Hoàng Anh Dũng, Vũ Thị Nga, Nguyễn Minh Châu, Nguyễn Cúc Trâm, and
Nguyễn Thị Bảo Hà. Editorial assistance provided by Elliot Waldman is also gratefully
acknowledged. Finally, I would also like to express our gratitude to the leaders and staff of
CSOs who share with us their important perspectives on their own organizations and the wider
situation of civil society in Vietnam.
Kim N. B. Ninh, Country Representative, Vietnam
1 The Asia Foundation and the Vietnam Asia Pacific Economic Center, Philanthropy in Vietnam (Hanoi, 2011).
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD…………………………………………………………………………………...1
LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................. 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 5
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 6
2. RESEARCH FOCUS AND METHODOLOGY.............................................................. 9
3. RESEARCH FINDINGS.................................................................................................. 10
3.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING ........................................ 10
Types of organizations........................................................................................................ 10
Registration......................................................................................................................... 11
Age of surveyed CSOs......................................................................................................... 12
Physical and human resources ........................................................................................... 13
Leadership and management.............................................................................................. 15
3.2 PROGRAM FOCUS AND STRATEGY...................................................................................... 17
Strategic planning............................................................................................................... 17
Fields of operation.............................................................................................................. 17
Approaches to program implementation ............................................................................ 19
Participation of stakeholders.............................................................................................. 21
3.3 ENGAGEMENT WITH OTHER SECTORS ................................................................................. 22
Interaction with central and local governments................................................................. 22
Interaction with the private sector...................................................................................... 23
3.4 NETWORKING .................................................................................................................... 24
3.5 FUNDING............................................................................................................................ 25
Funding sources.................................................................................................................. 25
Financial security ............................................................................................................... 26
Impacts of international donor presence............................................................................ 27
3.6 CHALLENGES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS............................................................................ 28
Administrative procedures and legal environment............................................................. 28
Optimism among CSOs....................................................................................................... 28
Organizational development needs..................................................................................... 30
4. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 31
BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................... 33
ANNEX: SURVEY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 34
2
Tables
Table 1: Self-identified CSO identity......................................................................................... 10
Table 2: Registration situation of CSOs ..................................................................................... 11
Table 3: Duration of registration process ................................................................................... 11
Table 4: Age of organizations..................................................................................................... 13
Table 5: Human resources of CSOs............................................................................................ 14
Table 6: CSOs with boards of directors...................................................................................... 15
Table 7: Age of CSO leaders...................................................................................................... 16
Table 8: Mode of operation ........................................................................................................ 19
Table 9: Impacts of international donor presence on Vietnamese civil society ......................... 28
Charts
Chart 1: Organizational changes resulting from training ........................................................... 13
Chart 2: Organizations with changes in leadership since founding............................................ 16
Chart 3: Fields of operation ........................................................................................................ 18
Chart 4: Number of organizations engaged in policy advocacy, by region and type of
organization ................................................................................................................................ 20
Chart 5: Participation of stakeholders in program implementation............................................ 22
Chart 6: Relationship with the central government .................................................................... 23
Chart 7: Funding sources............................................................................................................ 25
Chart 8: Budgets of surveyed CSOs for 2010 (in USD)............................................................. 26
Chart 9: Optimism among Vietnamese civil society .................................................................. 29
Chart 10: Areas most in need of improvement........................................................................... 30
3
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CBO
Community Based Organization
CDG
Cooperation and Development Group
CEPEW
CGFED
CHESH
CIFPEN
CISDOMA
Center for Education Promotion and Empowerment for Women
Center for Gender, Family, and Environment in Development
Center for Humanity and Ecology Studies in Highlands
Civil Society Inclusion in Food Security and Poverty Elimination Network
Consultative Institute for Socioeconomic Development of Rural and
Mountainous Areas
CODE
Consultancy on Development Institute
CSAGA
Center for Studies & Applied Sciences in Gender-Family-Women &
Adolescents
CRCD
CSO
Coalition for Responsible Community Development
Civil Society Organization
DWC
Center for Women and Children
GENCOMNET
HCMC
INGO
MOET
MOST
NGO
Gender and Community Development Network
Ho Chi Minh City
International Non-Governmental Organization
Ministry of Education and Training
Ministry of Science and Technology
Non Government Organization
PPWG
SDRC
SEARAV
SNV
SPERI
SRD
Public Participation Working Group
Social Work & Community Development Research and Consultancy Center
South East Asia Research Association of Vietnam
Netherlands Development Organization
Social Political Ecology Research Institute
Center for Sustainable Development
TAF
The Asia Foundation
UNDP
VIDS
United Nations Development Program
Vietnam Institute of Development Studies
Vietnamese Non-Governmental Organization
Vietnam General Confederation of Labor
Vietnam Union of Art and Literature
Vietnam Union of Friendship Organizations
Vietnam Union of Scientific and Technological Associations
VNGO
VGCL
VUAL
VUFO
VUSTA
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This comparative research project provides an overview of civil society organizations (CSOs)
in Vietnam. The research was carried out in Vietnam’s two major metropolitan areas, Hanoi
and Ho Chi Minh City, which are the bases for the majority of Vietnamese CSOs. The research
team selected fifty representative CSOs from each city, interviewing leaders of those
organizations on multiple aspects of civil society operation and development. The findings
focus on civil society governance, programmatic focus, operational approaches, forms of
engagement with other sectors such as businesses and government, networking, and funding.
The picture that emerges is one of a sector facing a range of serious challenges. Many CSOs
have suffered a series of funding crises in recent years. Limited and unstable budgets have
undermined CSOs’ abilities to carry out their activities, develop coherent long-term plans and
retain staff. Interviewees described downsizing, office relocation and budget crises. Many
CSOs remain dependent on international donors, and most struggle to access sufficient public
or private funding to support their activities. Retaining talented and experienced staff is also a
serious ongoing challenge. Young people join, gain experience and then depart for jobs in the
private sector or with international organizations. High staff turnover undermines activity
planning and delivery. The organizations also expressed concerns about their management,
governance, strategy and planning, acknowledging weaknesses that remain a serious
impediment to their organizational development and impact.
Despite these challenges, interviewees were overwhelmingly optimistic about the future of their
organizations and civil society in general. Eighty-six percent said they were either optimistic or
very optimistic about the future. Survey respondents demonstrated a strong sense of mission,
expertise, enthusiasm for their cause and flexibility in adapting to challenging operating
conditions. CSOs are exploring a range of funding and operational models; some are closer to
the state, others orientated toward international donors, and an increasing number are looking
to the private sector as a source of sustainable support. While a small number of established
CSOs dominate the national landscape, a wider group of formal and informal organizations are
fashioning space for a broadening range of activities depending on local conditions.
The research also identifies interesting contrasts in the structure, operations and outlooks of
CSOs between Hanoi and HCMC:
.
A larger proportion of the sample in HCMC was comprised of smaller community-focused
organisations, as opposed to the centers and institutes that proliferate in Hanoi.
. Hanoi CSOs are more likely to be networked with government agencies and evolve from
some previous connection with the government, whereas HCMC CSOs were more likely to
develop from informal social groups or faith-based organizations.
. Hanoi CSOs are much more involved in policy advocacy issues while HCMC CSOs tended
to focus on services for disadvantaged groups such as street children or migrant workers.
. HCMC CSOs seem to have more difficulties in registering their organizations with relevant
authorities than their Hanoi counterparts.
. Hanoi CSOs have more access to training and to donor funding, with a discernible focus on
donors’ program interests as a result. HCMC CSOs, on the other hand, wished there were
more training opportunities available, and the lack of donor funding also meant that they
were more likely to find support from individual contributions and the private sector.
5
1. INTRODUCTION
The rapid growth of the past two decades has transformed Vietnam economically and socially,
raising living standards and lifting millions out of poverty. This growth has generated new and
more complex development challenges, from environmental degradation to rising income
inequality. Basic public services such as health, education, and clean water are under serious
stress, and the government is struggling to maintain adequate standards and ease of access for
all citizens. More and more Vietnamese civil society organizations (CSOs) are emerging,
responding to the country’s needs through a variety of approaches, from independent research
and policy advocacy to charity work.
The nature of civil society in Vietnam remains a source of debate. It is not uncommon to
encounter the view among both Vietnamese and expatriates that there are no independent civil
society organizations in Vietnam. Many organizations claiming NGO status are quasi-
governmental, including research institutes and professional associations. They receive core
financial support from the state, at times functioning as part of the bureaucracy while at other
times carrying out independent policy research and advocacy. This situation can blur the
definition of what constitutes an NGO, but in the current context of civil society development
in Vietnam it is important to recognize meaningful civil society action and behavior even when
it comes from organizations associated with the state. Even beyond these organizations,
however, the past decade has seen a surge in the number of active and independent CSOs
whose contributions to the social life of the country should be recognized and documented.
Development of civil society in Vietnam
Since the first National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1935, Party
considerations of social organization in Vietnam have focused on the development of mass
organizations. They maintain large memberships (Women’s Union - 12 million; Farmers’
association – 8 million; General Federation of Trade Union – 4.2 million; Youth Union – 5.1
million; Veterans’ Association – 1.92 million) operating through extensive bureaucratic
structures at central, provincial, district and local levels and continue to play a dominant role in
civic life in Vietnam. Professional associations have also operated at both national and local
levels since independence. By 2006 there were 364 associations registered at the national level,
including VUSTA (56 associations), the Vietnam Union of Art and Literature (10 associations),
the Vietnam Union of Friendship Organizations (60 associations) as well as a wide variety of
other associations related to sports, economic activities, charitable activities and businesses.2 At
the local level, these associations are registered under local governments but whether operating
at national or local level, most of them rely on state subsidies. In 2001 there were 1,400
associations operating at the local level, and this figure grew rapidly to 4,157 associations by
2006.3 Mr. Thang Van Phuc, the former Vice Minister of Home Affairs, estimated that by
2010, there were nearly 15,000 associations across Vietnam.4
2 Nguyễn Ngọc Lâm, “Legal Regulations on Organization, Management of Association, and Measures of
refinement.” Presentation for a workshop organized by the Legal Reform Assistance Project, Hanoi, January 2007.
3Nguyễn Ngọc Lâm, 2007.
4 Thang Văn Phúc, “Tổng quan về hội, tổ chức phi chính phủ và thể chế pháp lý cho các tổ chức xã hội ở Việt
Nam” (An Overview of Associations, NGOs, and Legal Framework for Social Organizations in Vietnam).
Presentation for the annual NGO workshop organized by the Vietnam Union of Science and Technology
Associations, Hanoi, 20 September 2010.
6
Although mass organizations continue to dominate the space for civil society, the Doi Moi
reforms since 1986 have helped to catalyze greater diversity of civic life. There has been an
increase in public awareness of the contribution of non-government actors, as many new civil
society organizations have emerged to engage in a wide range of issues, from environmental
protection to gender equality and disaster relief. It should be noted that the situation is different
in the south, where pre-1975 tradition of social work and civic activism rooted in the churches
and temples continues to lead to some differing characteristics in civil society activities in
comparison to the north.
In the early years CSOs were often very clearly quasi-governmental or headed by retired
government officials who wanted to contribute to the country’s development and had the
knowledge and the network to establish their own organizations. With no clear legal framework
for civil society, Vietnamese organizations acquired their legal statuses in a variety of manners,
registering under relevant ministries, agencies, departments, or with umbrella organizations
such as the Vietnam Union of Science and Technology Associations (VUSTA) or the Southeast
Asia Research Association of Vietnam (SEARAV). Since the government emphasized science
and technology activities early on, many CSOs are registered under VUSTA and SEARAV,
often describing themselves as either institutes or centers. A Law on Associations has been
under discussion for many years but has yet to be formalized at the time of this writing. A
series of administrative decrees govern the operations of CSOs. This has meant that, in
practice, the way CSOs register as legal entities and operate remains varied and therefore
confusing.
Defining civil society organizations in modern Vietnam
This complex history and regulatory environment has produced a sector difficult to define, with
organizations varying widely in size and organizational structure referred to variously as
unions, associations, clubs, funds, institutes, centers, committees, and volunteer groups. It is
challenging to provide a concrete number for the wider community of CSOs. Estimates have
provided a total figure of CSOs between 1,700 (Thang Van Phuc) and 2,000 (Civil Society
Index Vietnam research).
One of the few systematic efforts to map out Vietnam’s civil society was carried out from
2005-2006 using a methodology devised by CIVICUS, an NGO based in South Africa.5 Taking
a broad and inclusive approach including the party-state affiliated mass organizations,
professional organizations and umbrella organizations, the Civil Society Index Vietnam study
group provided the following useful typology of civil society organizations:
5CIVICUS, VIDS, SNV, UNDP. The Emerging Civil Society: An Initial Assessment of Civil Society in Vietnam
(Hanoi, March 2006).
7
Category
Mass
Types of organizations
included in category
1. Women’s Union
2. Farmers’ Association
3. Youth Organization
4. War Veterans
Relation to the state
Vietnamese definition
Fatherland Front
Socio-Political
Organizations
Organizations
Association
5. Worker’s Organization
(VGCL)
Professional
Associations and
Umbrella
1. Umbrella organizations
like Red Cross, VUSTA,
VUAL, Cooperative
Alliance, etc.
1. Fatherland Front
1. Socio-Professional
Associations
Organizations
2. Professional
2. Social and
professional
associations; some
belong to the
NGOs
2. Registered with an
umbrella
Associations
organization, Center
or provincial
organization
VNGOs
Charity
VUSTA, Line
Social Organizations,
NGOs
Research NGOs
Consultancy NGOs
Educational NGOs
Health NGOs
Ministries, Provincial
or District People’s
Committees
Community-based Service and development or
Indirect affiliation to
other organizations or
Civil Code
Rural collaborative
groups
Faith-based
organizations
Neighborhood groups
Family clans
Organizations
livelihoods-oriented
Faith-based organizations
Neighborhood groups
Family clans
Many are not registered
Recreative groups
Source: Irene Norlund, “Filling the Gap: The Emerging Civil Society in Viet Nam.” p. 11.
As outlined in the section below, we selected the target group for this survey building on the
CIVICUS typology.
8
2. RESEARCH FOCUS AND METHODOLOGY
This research seeks to contribute to the growing knowledge base on civil society in Vietnam, as
well as civil society development initiatives. It does not include mass organizations and
umbrella and professional organizations, but only VNGOs (classed into institutes and centers)
and CBOs. Given the concentration of CSOs in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, this research
focuses on a set of formally registered organizations in these two major urban areas as a
reasonable proxy for describing trends in the country as a whole. The research team began their
analysis from lists of formally registered organizations, reaching out to both NGOs and CBOs
to allow the research to include a wide range of civil society activities.
Our experience, also borne out by the study, is that institutes are more likely to focus on
research and consultancy services, whereas centers tend toward the implementation of
programs and activities in the community. Although this distinction is not absolute, we have
tried to preserve it in this research to identify more detailed trends or patterns from the data. In
addition to these two types the study also includes a snapshot of the growing number of
community-based organizations (CBOs) from clan associations to water users’ groups to
student clubs to religious charities, who often do not seek formal registration but are
nevertheless active members of Vietnam’s civil society.
The research sought to be as representative as possible in its sample selection. However, given
the diverse forms of registration and differing patterns between north and south it is difficult to
be certain that the sample captures the exact balance of size and type of organization in the two
cities. We must therefore be careful to not over-interpret the data, rather using the numbers to
outline themes and trends. For instance, the sample in HCMC was dominated by smaller
community-focused organisations, whereas the sample in Hanoi focused on centers and
institutes with few CBOs. While it is the assessment of the research team that civil society
organizations in HCMC are, in general, smaller and more community focused, analysis of the
data on organizational set up and behavior must be assessed, at least partially, as a contrast
between smaller and larger organizations rather than as evidence of cultural difference between
Hanoi and HCMC. A detailed explanation of research methodology and sample selection is
included in Annex 1.
Fifty CSOs were surveyed and interviewed in Hanoi and fifty in Ho Chi Minh City, on six
areas:
o Organizational structure, management, and staffing;
o Program focus and approaches;
o Engagement with other sectors (government and businesses);
o Networking;
o Funding;
o Challenges and future directions.
9
3. RESEARCH FINDINGS
3.1 Organizational Structure, Management and Staffing
Types of organizations
When we asked CSOs how they define their organizations, we received a wide variety of
answers. Some focused on their mission, but others focused on their legal status according to
their registration certificates, or on the umbrella organization to which they belong. Many
wanted to select more than one option, reflecting the gap between their formal status and what
they perceive as their organizational mission.
Given only one option, a number of organizations selected “other.” This tendency was
particularly strong in Ho Chi Minh City, where 17 out of the 50 organizations self-identified
this way. One possible explanation for this is the organizations’ rather nebulous official status.
Many of them are affiliated with religious organizations or other private entities while others
are under state management. Indeed, of the 17 HCMC organizations answering “other” to this
question, 12 also self-identified as “other” when asked about their official registration status
(see section below). This also indicates that mission-oriented organizations engaged in a
number of different activities may be reluctant to pigeonhole themselves. For instance, the
Institute for Practical Psychology described its activities as research, clinical practice, and
social entrepreneurship. Finally, there is a possibility that organization staff may have been
unfamiliar with the terminology being used in the survey.
Table 1: Self-identified CSO identity
Types
Number of organizations
Hanoi
HCMC
Research institute
6
6
Scientific and technology organization
10
28
4
2
NGO
12
10
3
CBO/ volunteer group
Social enterprise
Others
0
2
17
50
Total
50
10
Registration
All CSOs in Vietnam are required to register with a relevant government body, a professional
or umbrella organization, a ministry, or local government entity. As such, the organization a
CSO registers with depends both on whom the CSO approaches and also on whether the
particular umbrella body or agency is willing to accept the CSO.
Table 2: Registration Situation of CSOs
Independent/
Not Registered
3
VUSTA
Mass
Organization
0
Local
Government
0
Other
22
28
Total
50
50
Hanoi
25
4
HCMC
6
1
11
There are clear differences in terms of registration patterns between CSOs in Hanoi and
HCMC. Half of the surveyed organizations in Hanoi are registered under VUSTA, in contrast
with only four organizations in HCMC. Eleven HCMC organizations (mainly CBOs) are
registered with the local government while no organizations in Hanoi selected this option.
Forty-four percent of organizations in Hanoi and 56% of organizations in HCMC chose to
register under other social and professional associations such as SEARAV or the Vietnam
Relief Association for Handicapped Children.
The differences between the two cities can be explained by a couple of factors. For one thing, it
is more difficult for CSOs in HCMC to approach Hanoi-based agencies such as VUSTA and
other ministerial/national associations given the geographical distance. The type of
organization also plays an important determining role; more CSOs in our sample in HCMC
have been established as clubs or charitable entities, and it is more natural for such
organizations to register with provincial-level agencies such as the People’s Committee,
universities, and HCMC-based social and professional associations.
Table 3: Duration of Registration Process
Regional variations in registration
Duration
Number of
organizations
status are also reflected in the ease
with which CSOs were able to
register. In Hanoi, 38 organizations
stated that they encountered no
difficulty during the registration
process. Although the remaining 12
complained of unclear guidance from
officials and longer procedures for
unconventional projects or initiatives,
in general most Hanoi-based CSOs
stated that the formal establishment of
their organizations was not too
difficult. This stands in contrast with
HCMC, where only 20 organizations
Hanoi
HCMC
Less than 6 mths
6 – 12 mths
36
16
9
3
1
1
7
2
1 – 2 yrs
Over 5 yrs
2
Don’t know/remember
23
said registration was easy, 9 stated that they faced difficulties, and the remaining 21 did not
11
want to express their opinion about this issue. In in-depth interviews, HCMC-based CSOs
indicated that the lack of clear procedures and regulations and the necessity of dealing with
multiple layers of local authorities posed obstacles in some cases.
While many CSOs found registration procedures challenging, a majority required less than six
months to complete the registration process. These organizations are especially concentrated in
Hanoi, as Table 3 shows. However, we must take care not to over-interpret the data. While
nearly half of HCMC organizations did not know or were not willing to state how long their
registration process took this can be partially explained by the much larger number of
organizations in HCMC with histories of over 10 years (see Table 4 below). Many of the older
organizations in HCMC are small CBOs, and are thus less likely to maintain institutional
memory over the course of office transitions and staff turnover, leading to more “Don’t
know/remember” responses. Also, during that period the concept of civil society was very new
to the authorities and there was an even greater lack of relevant legal documents. Registration
processes were, therefore, likely to be more ad hoc and haphazard than they are today.
Nevertheless, the very high “don’t know/remember” response from HCMC in comparison to
Hanoi may also reflect greater reluctance to indicate how long the registration process has
taken. Additionally, since CSOs in HCMC mostly access local government agencies or
institutes to register, they have fewer choices in identifying a relevant agency if their work is
not easily categorized or if the relevant agency is not interested. This limited ability to
formalize their organizations may in turn limit their ability to grow and raise funds. This may
explain why, in discussions the Foundation has had with CSOs over time, HCMC organizations
have expressed more interest in a Law of Associations than their Hanoi counterparts.
Case Study 1: Social Work & Community Development Research Center (SDRC)
Established in 1989, SDRC is one of the largest Ho Chi Minh City NGOs in the fields of social
work and community development. The organization benefited in its early years from the
effective support and supervision of the HCMC branch of the Vietnam Psychology and
Education Association, but it soon began to face funding constraints due to its legal status.
Because SDRC was registered with a professional association rather than a governmental
agency, under Vietnamese regulations it was unable to apply for funds. In 1992, the Center
embarked on the long journey of registering as a scientific NGO with the HCMC Department
of Science and Technology (DOST), a process that took nearly 10 years due to the lack of a
contact within the government to steward the process. Even after finally being approved in
2001, SDRC was requested to resubmit papers for renewal in 2005 and 2010. Thankfully
however, on the third attempt the organization was granted a permanent license to operate
under the DOST. With this status, SDRC can implement bigger projects and expand their
activities into different arenas.
Age of surveyed CSOs
Decree 35-HDBT dated 28/2/1992 on the management of science and technology activities was
the first legal document to define the rights of individuals, civil society organizations and
economic organizations to organize and implement scientific and technological activities since
the beginning of Doi Moi. However, the establishment of CSOs was still relatively rare until
the early 2000s, when the issuance of Decree 81/2002/ND-CP and Circular 10/2005/TT-
12
BKHCN by the Ministry of Science and Technology provided clear conditions for establishing
and registering science and technology organizations. The data suggests that this new legal
framework has had an impact on Vietnamese civil society development: 47% of interviewed
organizations were founded less than six years ago. There is also a marked contrast between the
north and south; southern NGOs and CBOs tend to be older than their northern counterparts, a
difference that can be explained by the many CSOs active in HCMC before 1975, whose legacy
continues to influence the city’s civic life.
Between 1945 and 1975 the South experienced a relative boom in CSOs; from professional
associations, charities to organizations supporting those affected by the war. While many of the
organizations pursuing various aspects of social work were closed and replaced by state
agencies after 1975, government policies toward religion meant that many religious-based
charitable groups were able to continue their work and remain active in HCMC today.
Table 4: Age of organizations
CBOs
Centers
Institutes
Total
Hanoi HCMC Hanoi HCMC Hanoi HCMC Hanoi HCMC
< 3 years
3-6 years
6-10 years
>10 years
Total
0
3
1
1
5
2
2
10
12
7
2
6
2
6
1
1
0
2
4
12
21
9
5
9
4
2
1
6
25
33
6
3
1
8
30
50
35
13
10
50
Physical and human resources
Chart 1: Organizational changes resulting from training
CSOs in both Hanoi and HCMC are
generally led by well-qualified individuals
drawn from the ranks of researchers and
retired government officials. In this sample
there is a slight difference in number of
staff between CSOs in Hanoi and HCMC,
with an average of 12-13 staff members in
the former and 15-16 in the latter. CSO
staff in Hanoi generally have higher
qualifications
than
their
southern
counterparts, with more Ph.D. and masters
degree holders. While female staff
outnumber their male colleagues across the board, the gender gap is particularly wide in
HCMC. These differences point to the contrasting nature of CSOs in the two cities. More of the
13
organizations in Hanoi function as research institutes requiring higher levels of education,
whereas the NGOs surveyed in the south are dominated by charitable work and community
interventions. The activities they carry out require more practical facilitators and social
workers, professions that tend to draw more women than men.
Table 5: Human resources of CSOs
Personnel
Hanoi
625 staff
50 orgs
12.5
HCMC
776 staff
50 orgs
15.8
Average number of personnel/organization
Total female staff
330
295
512
264
1.94
0.6
Total male staff
Ratio of female/male staff
1.12
1.94
2.72
6.84
Average number of Ph.D.’s /organization
Average number of master’s degrees /organization
1.9
Average number of bachelor’s
degrees/organization
6.9
Graduates of vocational schools
High school or lower
-
-
4.1
10.9
The majority of CSO staff are young and inexperienced. The leadership of most organizations
surveyed stated that capacity building for their staff is a key concern. In Hanoi, more than 90
percent of the surveyed organizations send their staff to external training, although only 36
percent have a staff training budget. In HCMC, about 50 percent of the organizations invest
their own budgets in staff capacity building. Interviewees commented that they struggle to
allocate funds for capacity building since most of their budget is tied to specific project
activities by donors. They are also under very strong pressure to cover salaries and overhead,
leaving little flexibility. Not surprisingly, most CSOs prefer to take advantage of external
training courses for their staff, especially when they are free of charge.
While most organizations do not invest in training courses, they are very appreciative of the
training courses that their staffs attend, which improve staff skills related to communication,
advocacy, training methodologies, negotiation, project management, reporting, and planning,
among others. International training courses are particularly appreciated for the opportunities to
be exposed to new perspectives and training methodologies. In all, almost half of surveyed
CSOs indicated that staff participation in training courses had contributed to major changes for
their organizations, with 30% stated that they had brought about small changes. In general,
NGO staff rarely participate in long training programs, tending to prefer shorter sessions with
14
TOT training skills to allow them to conduct training for internal staff and co-workers, as well
as for community members who live in areas where NGOs operate.
Most of the Vietnamese CSOs stated their staff turnover is high as they struggle to compete
with the better salaries and benefit packages offered by INGOs and the private sector. Most
CSOs also have difficulty securing a comfortable and convenient workplace. Among all the
organizations surveyed only one owns its own office while virtually all struggle to raise money
to pay the rent. Over the last few years CSOs have experienced funding shortages, forcing
many to rent offices far from the city center or temporarily move into the residence of a leader
or a volunteer.
Leadership and management
The registration procedure for CSOs requires that each organization establish a board of
directors. Twenty-four percent of surveyed organizations have simplified their management
structure since commencing operations, replacing the board with a single director with or
without a vice director. Of the organizations who have kept their boards, all indicated that their
director remains fully in charge of day-to-day operational, management, and decision-making
processes. This is indicative of the small size of most Vietnamese CSOs as well as the
generally dominant role of individual leaders within organizations.
Table 6: CSOs with boards of directors
CBOs
Centers
Institutes
Total
Hanoi HCMC Hanoi HCMC Hanoi HCMC Hanoi HCMC
Yes
No
4
1
5
23
10
33
28
7
11
2
6
4
4
0
4
38
12
50
38
12
50
Total
35
13
10
Founders of CSOs come from a variety of different backgrounds and motivations. Many are
retired government officials who have launched organizations to take advantage of their
experience and networks. These organizations tend to have better access to government funding
through state-funded research projects. This was particularly the case in the early years of civil
society development in Vietnam. However, there is also a new generation of CSOs emerging
led by younger, well-educated professionals with a strong commitment to social equality and
justice. The importance of INGOs as a training ground for CSO leaders should also be noted,
with a number of former INGO workers leaving to start their own organizations. Although still
limited in scope, this recent development is injecting greater professionalism, confidence, and
dynamism into the civil society environment in Vietnam.
Many CSOs are dominated by their founders, who tend to be involved in every aspect of
organizational operations. Although effective leadership transition is an important condition for
organizational sustainability, Chart 2 below shows a generally high level of leadership
continuity among surveyed CSOs, with a more balanced picture of leadership transition present
only among CBOs in HCMC. This may be partly due to the longer history of HCMC CSOs, but
15
the reality is that CSOs generally find it very difficult to replace their leaders. There is only a
small pool of talented individuals who are available and have the capacity to lead an
organization, especially when they would be better compensated in other occupations.
Chart 2: Organizations with changes in leadership since founding
35
Small or no change
30
Major change
25
20
15
10
5
0
Centers Institutes
CBOs
Centers Institutes
CBOs
16
Small or no change
Major change
32
3
9
1
4
1
12
1
4
0
17
Hanoi
HCMC
CSO leaders we interviewed generally stated that leaders’ age is not important, and that
organizational performance depends on capacity, sense of responsibility, prestige, hard work,
and management skills. Interviewees stated that leadership age, however, can have varied
organizational impacts. While young leaders can be more active and enthusiastic, there are
examples of them struggling to establish effective working relationships, especially with
authorities, which is important in Vietnam. Meanwhile, older CSO leaders may have broad
relationships and experience but can be conservative and slow to accept new methods and
program initiatives. The majority of CSO leaders are between 35 to 55 years old (52% in Hanoi
and 74% in HCMC). Interestingly, this sample identified far more leaders below the age of 35
years in Hanoi (24%) than in HCMC (6%). This comes as a surprise given that Hanoi CSOs
tend to be more focused on policy and research, potentially requiring a more senior network of
contacts to secure and implement projects, while HCMC CSOs tend to focus on community
interventions. However, it should be noted that the 12 Hanoi organizations with young
leadership were all relatively new, with all but one having been founded in the last six years.
Table 7: Age of CSO leaders
CBOs
Centers
Institutes
Total
Hanoi HCMC Hanoi HCMC Hanoi HCMC Hanoi HCMC
16
<35 years
35 – 55
>55 years
Total
2
3
0
5
3
24
6
9
17
9
0
9
1
6
0
4
0
4
12
26
12
50
3
37
10
50
4
3
33
35
13
10
3.2 Program Focus and Strategy
Strategic planning
When asked about their key priorities and strategic foci, responses from the interviewed
organizations fell roughly into two categories. The first focused clearly on substantive themes
related to sustainable development, social justice and equal opportunities for poor and
vulnerable groups in society. The second set of responses emphasized operational challenges
such as developing projects and fundraising to stabilize their activities.
In terms of planning, all respondents said their organizations had a clear founding mission.
Between two thirds and three quarters of organizations have multi-year strategies, while the
remaining organizations indicated that their directions were formulated among key staff and
they didn’t have the human or financial resources to invest in the development of a formal
strategy. Most organizations stated that they had a clear annual plan. For the 12% who did not
have one, the reasons had to do with fear of imminent closure or lack of adequate
organizational capacity.
Fields of operation
Poverty alleviation and community development are the traditional focus areas for Vietnamese
CSOs. These activities have been particularly concentrated in remote or predominantly ethnic
minority areas and largely financed by international donors or state resources. However, with
the recent expansion of civil society has come a widening of scope to include a broader range
of livelihood models and focus areas such as education, gender equality, natural resource
management, and climate change.
Chart 3 below breaks down the surveyed organizations’ fields of operation by location. In
general, there is a propensity for Hanoi CSOs to focus on research, policy analysis, and
technical assistance whereas HCMC CSOs tend to concentrate on concrete social issues and the
provision of services to disadvantaged populations in the community. Issues related to children
and youth, the disabled, and HIV/AIDS make up a larger share of HCMC organizations’ work
than their counterparts in Hanoi. The longer history in the south of social work as a field of
study and practice helps explain these differences, as does the greater involvement of faith-
based organizations in non-profit and charity work in HCMC. Moreover, the relative focus of
Hanoi organizations on issues related to the environment, governance, and natural resource
management can perhaps be explained by the fact that these areas are more conducive to policy
advocacy, a strategy used predominantly by Hanoi organizations.
Proximity to bilateral donors and international organizations also shapes the program agenda of
Hanoi organizations. As a case in point, climate change is a hot topic among the global
17
development aid community, and the proliferation of funding for projects in this area has
incentivized Hanoi CSOs to orient their activities toward climate change mitigation and
adaptation. This is despite the fact that potential impacts of climate change tend to be more
severe in the South.
Chart 3: Fields of operation
30
Hanoi
25
HCMC
20
15
10
5
0
Of the 62 centers and institutes interviewed, only 13 operate in just one field. CBOs in contrast
tended to focus only on one or two fields, especially if they concentrate on working with
children or disabled people. Organizations working in multiple fields were keen to stress that
multi-dimensional interventions are necessary to address complex development issues or social
problems, while organizations working in a specific field were just as keen to stress the benefits
of deeper and focused interventions.
The majority of CSOs in both Hanoi and HCMC are largely continuing to work on the issues
that they started with when they were first established. However, a significant number of
organizations, including almost half of the 38 CBOs and over 30% of the 48 centers in the
sample, said they had changed focus to adapt to changing socio-political needs as well as
funding sources.
18
Tải về để xem bản đầy đủ
39 trang
29420
Free
Bạn đang xem 20 trang mẫu của tài liệu "Civil society in Vietnam: A comparative study of civil society organizations in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh city", để tải tài liệu gốc về máy hãy click vào nút Download ở trên
File đính kèm:
- civil_society_in_vietnam_a_comparative_study_of_civil_societ.pdf
