Post on 07-Dec-2014
description
transcript
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