PAPI2017

The Viet Nam Provincial Governanceand Public Administration Performance Index

Measuring citizens’ experiences

Centre for Research and Trainingof the Vietnam Fatherland Front

Centre for Community Support and Development Studies

Citation: CECODES, VFF-CRT, RTA & UNDP (2018). The 2017 Viet Nam Governance and Public Administration Performance

Index (PAPI 2017): Measuring Citizens’ Experiences. A Joint Policy Research Paper by the Centre for Community Support and

Development Studies (CECODES), Centre for Research and Training of the Viet Nam Fatherland Front (VFF-CRT), Real-Time

Analytics, and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Ha Noi, Viet Nam.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or

by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission.

For a list of any errors or omissions found subsequent to printing, please visit the PAPI website at www.papi.org.vn.

Disclaimer: The opinions, analyses and recommendations contained in this document do not necessarily reflect the official

opinions of the partner organisations. The report is an independent publication.

Maps presented herein are intended for illustrative purposes only. For the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP), a co-implementing partner in this PAPI research, the designations employed and the presentation of material on

the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UN or UNDP concerning the legal status of

any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Cover and lay-out design: Golden Sky Co., Ltd. – www.goldenskyvn.com

Publishing licence No: ĐKHXB 898-2018/CXBIPH/10-37/TN and QĐXB No: 230C/QĐ-NXBTN issued on 16 March, 2018

ISBN: 978 - 604 - 64 - 966 - 323 - 9

PAPI 2017The Viet Nam Provincial Governance

and Public Administration Performance Index

Measuring citizens’ experiences

Centre for Community Support and Development Studies (CECODES)Centre for Research and Training of the Viet Nam Fatherland Front (VFF-CRT)

Real-Time Analytics (RTA)United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

6 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

FOREWORD ..............................................................................................................................................................................VIII

FOREWORD ...............................................................................................................................................................................VII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................VIII

PAPI NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD ............................................................................................................. X

SNAPSHOT OF PAPI FROM 2009-2017 ....................................................................................................XI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................XIII

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE, 2011-2017

Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

National Trends from 2011 to 2017........................................................................................................................................... 7

Corruption in the Public Sector as Perceived and Experienced by Citizens .......................................................... 9

Land Seizure and Compensation, and Access to Land Titles ......................................................................................12

Access to Public Health Insurance ...........................................................................................................................................14

Satisfaction with Household Economic Conditions ........................................................................................................16

Implications ........................................................................................................................................................................................18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

www.papi.org.vn I

CHAPTER 2

IMPORTANT ISSUES IN VIET NAM IN 2017

Overview ..............................................................................................................................................................................................21

Issues of Greatest Concern in 2017 .........................................................................................................................................21

Poverty as an Ongoing Major Concern................................................................................................................................23

Willingness to Pay for Poverty Reduction ...........................................................................................................................25

Trade-offs between Economic and Environmental Concerns ....................................................................................29

Trade-offs between Jobs and Environmental Degradation .........................................................................................29

Trade-offs between Coal-fired Power and Clean Air .......................................................................................................32

Access to Information and E-Governance ............................................................................................................................34

Access to Information ................................................................................................................................................................34

Access to E-government Services ..........................................................................................................................................35

Implications ........................................................................................................................................................................................36

CHAPTER 3

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCE

Overview ..............................................................................................................................................................................................39

2017 Provincial Performance by the Six PAPI Dimensions ..........................................................................................43

Dimension 1: Participation at Local Levels .........................................................................................................................43

Dimension 2: Transparency of Local Decision-making ..................................................................................................46

Dimension 3: Vertical Accountability ...................................................................................................................................50

Dimension 4: Control of Corruption in the Public Sector .............................................................................................53

Dimension 5: Public Administrative Procedures ..............................................................................................................58

Dimension 6: Public Service Delivery ...................................................................................................................................62

Aggregate 2017 PAPI and 2016-2017 Comparisons .......................................................................................................67

2017 Provincial Profiles ................................................................................................................................................................73

Ha Noi ..............................................................................................................................................................................................74Ha Giang .........................................................................................................................................................................................75Cao Bang .........................................................................................................................................................................................76Bac Kan ............................................................................................................................................................................................77Tuyen Quang .................................................................................................................................................................................78Lao Cai .............................................................................................................................................................................................79

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Dien Bien ........................................................................................................................................................................................80Lai Chau ..........................................................................................................................................................................................81Son La ..............................................................................................................................................................................................82Yen Bai .............................................................................................................................................................................................83Hoa Binh .........................................................................................................................................................................................84Thai Nguyen ..................................................................................................................................................................................85Lang Son .........................................................................................................................................................................................86Quang Ninh ...................................................................................................................................................................................87Bac Giang ........................................................................................................................................................................................88Phu Tho ...........................................................................................................................................................................................89Vinh Phuc........................................................................................................................................................................................90Bac Ninh ..........................................................................................................................................................................................91Hai Duong ......................................................................................................................................................................................92Hai Phong .......................................................................................................................................................................................93Hung Yen ........................................................................................................................................................................................94Thai Binh .........................................................................................................................................................................................95Ha Nam ............................................................................................................................................................................................96Nam Dinh .......................................................................................................................................................................................97Ninh Binh ........................................................................................................................................................................................98Thanh Hoa ......................................................................................................................................................................................99Nghe An ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 100Ha Tinh .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 101Quang Binh ................................................................................................................................................................................. 102Quang Tri ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 103Thua Thien-Hue ......................................................................................................................................................................... 104Da Nang ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 105Quang Nam ................................................................................................................................................................................ 106Quang Ngai ................................................................................................................................................................................. 107Binh Dinh ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 108Phu Yen ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 109Khanh Hoa................................................................................................................................................................................... 110Ninh Thuan ................................................................................................................................................................................. 111Binh Thuan .................................................................................................................................................................................. 112Kon Tum ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 113Gia Lai ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 114Dak Lak ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 115Dak Nong ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 116Lam Dong .................................................................................................................................................................................... 117Binh Phuoc .................................................................................................................................................................................. 118Tay Ninh ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 119Binh Duong ................................................................................................................................................................................. 120Dong Nai ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 121Ba Ria-Vung Tau ......................................................................................................................................................................... 122Ho Chi Minh City ....................................................................................................................................................................... 123Long An ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 124Tien Giang ................................................................................................................................................................................... 125Ben Tre .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 126Tra Vinh ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 127

www.papi.org.vn III

Vinh Long .................................................................................................................................................................................... 128Dong Thap .................................................................................................................................................................................. 129An Giang ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 130Kien Giang ................................................................................................................................................................................... 131Can Tho ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 132Hau Giang .................................................................................................................................................................................... 133Soc Trang ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 134Bac Lieu ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 135Ca Mau .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 136

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................................................. 137

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 141

Appendix A: An Update of Provincial Responses to PAPI through 2017 .............................................................. 141

Appendix B: Citizens’ Perspective of Progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals in Viet Nam ......................................................................................................................................................... 145

Appendix C: Key Demographic Specifications of PAPI 2017 Sample .................................................................... 148

IV PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1.1: PAPI Mean Scores by Dimensions, 2011-2017 ..................................................................................................... 8

Figure 1.1a: Changes in Mean Scores in Comparable Dimensions, 2011-2017 ............................................................. 8

Figure 1.2: Dimensional Mean Scores by Gender and Ethnicity, 2017 .............................................................................. 9

Figure 1.3: Trends in Control of Corruption in the Public Sector Dimension, 2011-2017 .........................................10

Figure 1.4: Trends in Corruption as Perceived by Citizens, 2011-2017 ............................................................................10

Figure 1.5: Importance of Personal Connections to Access State Employment, 2011-2017 ..................................11

Figure 1.6: Percentage of Citizens Reporting Land Seizures, 2011-2017 .......................................................................12

Figure 1.7: Percentage of Respondents Reporting that Land Compensation was Fair, 2014-2017......................13

Figure 1.8: Types of Compensation Received for Land, 2014-2017 ..................................................................................13

Figure 1.9: Gender Gap in Land Registration, 2017................................................................................................................14

Figure 1.10: Percentage of Citizens with Health Insurance, 2011-2017 ..........................................................................15

Figure 1.11: Percentage of Citizens with Health Insurance by Region, 2014-2017 ....................................................15

Figure 1.12: Percentage of Citizens with Health Insurance by Ethnicity, 2017.............................................................15

Figure 1.13: Citizens’ Perception of Current Household Economic Situation, 2011-2017 ........................................17

Figure 1.14: Perceived Economic Situation in the Next Five Years, 2011-2017 ............................................................17

Figure 1.15: Perceived Economic Situation in the Next Five Years by Income, 2016-2017 ......................................18

Figure 2.1: Most Important Issue Facing the Country from Citizens’ Perspective, 2017 ...........................................22

Figure 2.2: Change in Issues of Greatest Concern, 2015-2017 ...........................................................................................22

Figure 2.3: Concern for Poverty by Provincial GDP, 2017 .....................................................................................................24

Figure 2.4: Reasons for Concern About Poverty by Provincial GDP and Income Levels, 2017 ...............................25

Figure 2.5: Willingness to Pay Additional Income for Poverty Reduction, 2017 ..........................................................27

Figure 2.6: Support for Paying Tax for Transfers of Revenue to Other Provinces, 2017 .............................................28

Figure 2.7: Relationship Between Provincial GDP and Support for Revenue Transfers, 2017 .................................29

Figure 2.8: Impact of Investment Project Attributes on Project Choice, 2017 .............................................................31

Figure 2.9: Impact of Mentioning Greenhouse Gases on Support for Plants by Education Level, 2017 ............33

Figure 2.10: Determinants of Access to Administrative Documents Online, 2017 .....................................................35

Figure 3.1: Year-on-Year Change in Participation at Local Levels, 2016–2017 ..............................................................45

Figure 3.2a: Year-on-Year Change in Transparency in Local Decision-making, 2016–2017 .....................................48

Figure 3.2b: Five-Year Change in Transparency in Local Decision-making, 2012 against 2017 .............................49

Figure 3.3: Year-on-Year Change in Vertical Accountability, 2016–2017 ........................................................................52

Figure 3.4a: Year-on-Year Change in Control of Corruption in the Public Sector, 2016–2017 ................................55

www.papi.org.vn V

LIST OF MAPS

LIST OF BOXES AND TABLES

Map 3.1: Provincial Performance in Citizen Participation at Local Levels by Quartiles, 2017 .................................43

Map 3.2: Provincial Performance in Transparency of Local Decision-making by Quartiles, 2017 .........................46

Map 3.3: Provincial Performance in Vertical Accountability by Quartiles, 2017 ..........................................................50

Map 3.4: Provincial Performance in Control of Corruption in the Public Sector by Quartiles, 2017 ....................53

Map 3.5: Provincial Performance in Public Administrative Procedures by Quartiles, 2017 .....................................58

Map 3.6: Provincial Performance in Public Service Delivery by Quartiles, 2017 ..........................................................62

Map 3.7: Provincial Performance in Governance and Public Administration by Quartiles, 2017 ..........................68

Table 1.1: Trends in Corruption as Experienced by Citizens, 2012-2017 ........................................................................11

Table 1.2: Reasons for Not Having Name on LURC, 2016-2017 ..........................................................................................14

Table 1.3: Average PAPI Scores by Economic Satisfaction Level, 2017 ............................................................................16

Table 2.1: Concern about Poverty by Income Level, 2017 ...................................................................................................23

Table 2.2: Reasons for Concern About Poverty, 2017 ............................................................................................................24

Figure 3.4b: Five-Year Change in Control of Corruption in the Public Sector, 2012 against 2017 ........................56

Figure 3.4c: Citizen Perceptions of Corruption by Province, 2017 ....................................................................................57

Figure 3.4d: Relationship Needed for State Employment by Province, 2017 ...............................................................57

Figure 3.5: Year-on-Year Change in Public Administrative Procedures, 2016–2017 ...................................................60

Figure 3.5a: Citizen Assessment of Administrative Services for LURCs, 2017 ...............................................................61

Figure 3.5b: Assessment of Administrative Services at the Commune Level, 2017 ...................................................61

Figure 3.6a: Year-on-Year Change in Public Service Delivery, 2016–2017 .....................................................................64

Figure 3.6b: Five-Year Change in Public Service Delivery, 2012 against 2017 ..............................................................65

Figure 3.6c: Citizens’ Assessment of Quality of Public Primary Schools, 2017 ..............................................................66

Figure 3.6d: Citizens’ Assessment of Quality of Public District Hospitals, 2017 ...........................................................66

Figure 3.7: Year-on-Year Change in Aggregate PAPI by Province, 2016–2017 ..............................................................70

Figure 3.7a: A Converging Trend in Provincial Aggregated 2017 PAPI Scores .............................................................71

Figure 3.7b: Correlation between the 2017 PAPI and 2017 Provincial Competitiveness Index (PCI) ...................71

VI PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Table 2.3: Percent of Respondents Paying Personal Income Tax, 2017 ...........................................................................26

Table 2.4: Random Attributes of Hypothetical Projects .......................................................................................................30

Table 2.5: Impact of Environmental Damage on Project Choice by Education Level, 2017 ....................................32

Table 2.6: Impact of High Employment on Project Choice by Education Level, 2017 ...............................................32

Table 2.7: Determinants of Support for Coal-Fired Power Plants, 2017 ..........................................................................33

Table 2.8: Source of Information on Government Documents, 2017 ..............................................................................34

Table 2.9: Usage of Online Portals for Accessing Administrative Documents, 2017 ..................................................35

Table 3: Year-on-Year Progress and Setbacks, 2017 against 2016 .....................................................................................40

Table 3a: Trends in Local Government Performance in First Two Years (2016-2017)

of the 2016-2021 Government Term at the Indicator Level .............................................................................41

Table 3.1: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Participation at the Local Levels by

Sub-dimension, 2017....................................................................................................................................................44

Table 3.2: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Transparency by Sub-dimension, 2017 ..................................47

Table 3.3: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Vertical Accountability by Sub-dimension, 2017 ................51

Table 3.4: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Control of Corruption by Sub-dimension, 2017 .................54

Table 3.5: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Public Administrative Procedures by

Sub-dimension, 2017....................................................................................................................................................59

Table 3.6: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Public Service Delivery by Sub-dimension, 2017 ...............63

Table 3.7. Dashboard of Aggregate Dimensional Performance by Province, 2017 ....................................................69

www.papi.org.vn VII

FOREWORD

Nine years after the first pilot and seven years after the first nationwide implementation, the Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) has become an increasingly reliable and trusted source of data on how well local governments in Viet Nam perform in the eyes of citizens. Based on more than 103,000 face-to-face interviews since 2009 with citizens randomly selected from all 63 provinces, PAPI has been useful in ushering in a new thinking about governing based on quantitative evidence. Top leaders from the Communist Party of Viet Nam, the government and the National Assembly have frequently referred to PAPI findings when engaging with individual provinces or sectors, using it as a valuable dashboard to guide and improve governance, with the ultimate goal to improve citizens’ satisfaction with public services. The media, mass organisations and non-governmental organisations have used the wealth of PAPI data to demand more accountability from the government, and to inform their development and business strategies.

Discussions are continuing in 2018 about how to achieve the goal of creating a “chính phủ kiến tạo” (“a facilitating government”) against the backdrop of an unprecedented crackdown on mismanagement and corruption, such as the cases involving Ocean Bank and PetroVietnam (PVN). These efforts signal a new level of seriousness and commitment by the government to fighting these lethal problems. New legislation, such as the Law on Access to Information, promise a better framework for transparency. In this context, PAPI will continue to help the Party, the government, and society at large to validate these crucial efforts and evaluate their effectiveness over time. PAPI would not have been possible without generous funding from the Government of Switzerland over the last seven years, from the Government of Australia from December 2017 onwards, and from the Government of Ireland in 2018. At the same time, the initiative owes its visibility and popularity to the fact that it is embraced by a variety of stakeholders, from ordinary citizens to development partners and government agencies at multiple levels, and we are truly grateful for this.

Many challenges lie ahead for PAPI. How can it be relevant to Viet Nam’s changing reality after almost a decade since it began? How can we leverage the aggregation of citizens’ voices for more effective changes to the performance of local governments in governance and public administration? We hope this report will provide data and evidence for ongoing and future discussions on how to translate policies into reality and how to make policies more grounded to satisfy citizens at large. With the aim of ‘connecting the dots,’ as illustrated by the cover design, the 2017 PAPI Report will help to further bridge policy and practice, connect different government levels through better coordination and oversight, enhance the link between supply and demand for public services, and meet the expectations for sustainable development within and beyond Viet Nam. We also hope for continued support and constructive feedback to make PAPI even more meaningful.

Centre for Community Support

and Development Studies

Centre for Research and Training of

the Viet Nam Fatherland Front

United NationsDevelopment Programme

in Viet Nam

VIII PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This 2017 PAPI Report is the result of the ninth iteration of fruitful partnership and collaboration between the Centre for Community Support and Development Studies (CECODES), the Centre for Research and Training of the Viet Nam Fatherland Front (VFF-CRT), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). In addition, since 2015 Real-Time Analytics has provided technological support to digitize PAPI’s data collection processes.

The report is co-authored by Ms Đỗ Thanh Huyền from UNDP; Dr Đặng Hoàng Giang and Dr Trần Công Chính from CECODES; Associate Professor of Political Economy Dr Edmund J. Malesky from Duke University (UNDP international consultant on governance measurement); and Dr Paul Schuler from the University of Arizona (UNDP international consultant on research quality control).

The team wishes to thank Ms Akiko Fujii, Deputy Country Director of UNDP Viet Nam and Ms Catherine Phuong, Head of Governance and Participation Team of UNDP Viet Nam, for their substantive and managerial advice throughout the 2017 PAPI implementation cycle. Special thanks also go to Dr Đặng Ngọc Dinh, former director of CECODES, for his insightful and practical advice during the implementation of the 2017 PAPI survey.

PAPI surveys have been made possible thanks to diligent guidance from the Viet Nam Fatherland Front (VFF) and proactive VFF collaboration at the provincial to grassroots levels. Special thanks also go to the 14,097 Vietnamese citizens who were randomly selected for the face-to-face interviews in 2017. They actively participated in the 2017 PAPI survey by sharing their valuable experiences of interactions with local authorities and their perspectives on governance, public administration performance, and public service delivery in their localities.

PAPI has been guided by the PAPI Advisory Board comprised of both national and international members (see the list of board members herein) who have great insights into Vietnamese public policies and practices and knowledge of international standards in the areas of governance and public administration. The advisors have played an instrumental role in making PAPI relevant and accountable to different beneficiaries.

Great appreciation goes to the Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics (HCMA), including President Dr Nguyễn Xuân Thắng and other HCMA leaders and senior experts (especially Dr Bùi Phương Đình, Dr Đặng Ánh Tuyết, Dr Lê Văn Chiến and Dr Hà Việt Hùng), for their fruitful collaboration in PAPI action research in an increasing number of provinces, and for their use of PAPI findings in HCMA executive training programmes.

Much appreciation is extended to the National Assembly Library for its support in disseminating annual PAPI reports to National Assembly members over the past several years. This has helped PAPI findings to be heard and discussed at National Assembly meetings.

For their work to successfully collect PAPI data in 2017 and previous years, special thanks go to VFF-CRT Vice Directors Mr Lê Mậu Nhiệm and Dr Phạm Thị Hồng, and their colleagues, as well as to Mr Nguyễn Ngọc Dinh, former director of the Department for Democracy and Law (VFF Central Committee). The VFF-CRT has been instrumental in facilitating the engagement with 63 provincial VFF committees to date.

Field controllers played a critical role in the 2017 PAPI survey. They include Nguyễn Thị Lan Anh, Tạ Kim Cúc, Lê Hữu Dũng, Đặng Phương Giang, Nguyễn Tuấn Hải, Nguyễn Thị Hiền, Nguyễn Công Hiển, Nguyễn Văn Hiệu,

www.papi.org.vn IX

Nguyễn Văn Hùng, Lê Thế Lĩnh, Lê Văn Lư, Đinh Y Ly, Phạm Thị Minh Nguyệt, Nguyễn Thị Quỳnh Trang, Đặng Hoàng Phong, Trịnh Thị Trà My, Sùng A Phềnh, Hà Quang Phúc, Lê Minh Tâm, Nguyễn Thị Phương Thảo, Vũ Chiến Thắng, Phạm Văn Thịnh, Nguyễn Ngọc Tùng, Trần Đình Trọng, Phan Lạc Trung, Nguyễn Hữu Tuyên, Nông Hữu Dương, Trần Bội Văn, Nguyễn Lê Phương, Nguyễn Thị Quỳnh, Nguyễn Văn Thắng, Lê Hải Hà and Đặng Quốc Trung. These field controllers all deserve special mention as they ensured the data collection process was fully compliant with the strict PAPI procedures and standards.

The tablet-based survey platform would not have been possible without the great technical support and services provided by Real-Time Analytics (RTA). Our appreciation in particular goes to RTA Director Dr Lê Đặng Trung and his associates, including Đào Hoàng Bình Thiên, Nguyễn Anh Tuấn, Nguyễn Quang Tuyến, Trần Phương Thảo and Nguyễn Thị Hồng Linh, who spent days and nights working to ensure that the 2017 PAPI tablet-based survey worked, the fieldwork monitoring website (www.papi.rta.vn) operated smoothly, real-time data collection functioned, and field support services were available every day.

In addition, thanks must go to the 308 enumerators who were selected from 1,238 final-year university student applicants across Viet Nam. Without these young and enthusiastic interviewers, the data collection process could not have been completed. Special thanks go to CECODES collaborator Trần Vân Anh for her support in recruiting the enumerators following a rigorous process of enumerator selection and meeting strict PAPI research requirements.

The work of Nguyễn Thị Quỳnh Trang, Phạm Thị Minh Nguyệt and Đặng Hoàng Phong from CECODES is recognized, particularly their pivotal role in facilitating implementation of the fieldwork, providing logistical support, and effectively coordinating with provincial VFF committees during the data collection process. Mr Phạm Minh Trí from CECODES followed up on the design of the 2017 tablet-based questionnaire and collaborated with the RTA team when required.

Mr Stanford Smith, UNDP editor and communication consultant, diligently edited the English version of this report. W. G. Technology Solutions has supported the development of the interactive PAPI website (www.papi.org.vn). Ms Nguyễn Thùy Dương helped with turning important findings into infographics.

Generous funding from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) from 2011 to November 2017 and from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) of Australia from December 2017 onward is much appreciated. Additional financial contributions from the Embassy of Ireland from December 2017 (for activities in 2018), and from the United Nations and UNDP in Viet Nam over the years since 2009, are also greatly valued.

X PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Mr Jairo Acuna-Alfaro, Policy Advisor, Responsive and Accountable Institutions Team, Governance and Peacebuilding, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, United Nations Development Programme in New York

Mr Justin Baguley, Counsellor in Economic and Development Cooperation, the Embassy of Australia in Viet Nam

Mr Bùi Đặng Dũng, Vice Chairman, Committee on Finance and Budget, National Assembly, Member of the Kien Giang Provincial National Assembly Delegation

Mr Bùi Phương Đình, Director, Viet Nam Institute for Leadership and Public Policy, Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics

Mdm Cao Thị Hồng Vân, Former Director of the Centre for Women and Development, Central Committee of the Viet Nam Women’s Union

Mr Đinh Xuân Thảo, Former President, Institute of Legislative Studies, National Assembly Steering Committee

Mr Đỗ Duy Thường, Vice Chairman of the Advisory Board on Democracy and Law, Viet Nam Fatherland Front Central Committee

Mdm Akiko Fujii, Deputy Country Director, United Nations Development Programme in Viet Nam

Mr Hồ Ngọc Hải, Vice-chairperson of the Advisory Council for Science, Education and Environment of the Advisory Board, Viet Nam Fatherland Front Central Committee

Ms Hoàng Vân Anh, Director of the Legal Department, Land Administration Agency of Viet Nam, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Mr Hoàng Xuân Hoà, Director of General Economic Affairs, Central Commission of Economic Affairs, Viet Nam Communist Party

Mr Lê Văn Lân, Former Vice Chairman, North-western Region Steering Committee

Mr Nguyễn Đình Cung, President of the Central Commission for Economic Management

Mr Nguyễn Sĩ Dũng, Former Vice Chairperson of the Office of the National Assembly

Mdm Nguyễn Thuý Anh, Division Head, Communist Party Magazine, Central Party Committee, Viet Nam Communist Party

Mr Nguyễn Văn Quyền, President of the Viet Nam Lawyers Association

Ms Nuala O’Brien, Deputy Head of Mission, the Embassy of Ireland to Viet Nam

Mdm Phạm Chi Lan, Senior Economist and former Vice President, Viet Nam Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Mr Phạm Duy Nghĩa, Lecturer, Fulbright Economics Teaching Programme, University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City

Mr Phạm Văn Tân, Vice President and General Secretary, Viet Nam Union of Science and Technology

Mr Thang Văn Phúc, (Advisory Board lead), former Vice Minister of Home Affairs, President of the Viet Nam Institute of Development Studies

Ms. Trần Thị Quốc Khánh, Standing Member of the National Assembly’s Committee for Science, Technology and Environment

Note: The list is in alphabetical order by family name.

PAPI NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD

www.papi.org.vn XI

SNAPSHOT OF PAPI FROM 2009-2017PAPI: The Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index

Aims: PAPI aims to generate information that can improve the performance of local authorities in meeting their citizens’ needs by: (i) creating constructive competition and promoting learning among local authorities; and (ii) enabling citizens to benchmark their local government’s performance and advocate for improvement.

Approach: Citizens are at the heart of Viet Nam’s development. As ‘end users’ of public administration and public services they are fully capable of assessing the performance of the State and local authorities, and supporting the State in establishing a State that is “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Beneficiaries: - Vietnamese citizens- 63 provincial governments (including Provincial Party Committees, People’s Committees, and

People’s Councils) and their district and commune affiliates- Relevant central agencies (the Viet Nam Communist Party, the National Assembly, and the

Government and its ministries) - The media, mass organisations, and civil society organisations - The research community in Viet Nam and abroad- The international community in Viet Nam and abroad

What PAPI measures:

Six dimensions, 22 sub-dimensions, more than 90 indicators, and more than 520 substantive questions about Viet Nam’s policy matters covering1. Participation at local levels2. Transparency in local decision-making3. Vertical accountability towards citizens4. Control of corruption in the public sector5. Public administrative procedures6. Public service delivery

Method: Face-to-face interviews Duration: From 45-60 minutes on average

Sampling: International state-of-the-art methodological standards: probability proportional to size (PPS), and random selection

Where: Across all 63 provinces and municipalities in Viet Nam since 2011, covering • 207 districts (including 64 capital districts and PPS-sampled districts) • 414 communes (including district-seated communes and PPS-sampled communes) • 828 villages (including commune-seated villages and PPS-sampled villages)

Who: 103,059 citizens from all demographic backgrounds since 2009

• 2017: 14,097 (52.6% women)• 2016: 14,063 (54.8% women)

• 2015: 13,955 (54.1% women)

• 2014: 13,552 (52.9% women)

• 2013: 13,892 (52.7% women)

• 2012: 13,747 (52.6% women)

• 2011: 13,642 (52.9% women)

• 2010: 5,568 (30 provinces; 47.5% women)

• 2009: 543 (3 provinces; 40.3% women)

Samples representative for all ethnicities in Viet Nam since 2010

• 2017: Kinh 83.5%; Non-Kinh 16.5%• 2016: Kinh 83.7%; Non-Kinh 16.3%

• 2015: Kinh 83.9%; Non-Kinh 16.1%

• 2014: Kinh 83.9%; Non-Kinh 16.1%

• 2013: Kinh 84.6%; Non-Kinh 15.4%

• 2012: Kinh 84.4%; Non-Kinh 15.6%

• 2011: Kinh 84.5%; Non-Kinh 15.5%

• 2010: Kinh 85.0%; Non-Kinh 15.0%

Implementing partners:

- Centre for Community Support and Development Studies (CECODES)- Centre for Research and Training of the Viet Nam Fatherland Front (VFF-CRT)- Real-Time Analytics (RTA)- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Information gateway:

Website: www.papi.org.vnTwitter: @PAPI_Vietnam

Facebook: www.facebook.com/papivnYouTube: www.youtube.com/user/PAPIVietNam

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PAPI2017

This report presents findings from the seventh consecutive annual nationwide survey of the Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI). The 2017 PAPI Report provides data and analysis about the country’s performance in governance and public administration, as drawn from citizens’ direct interactions and experiences with local governments at different levels in 2017. It captures experiences and perceptions related to the performance of local governments in governance and public administration based on a survey of 14,097 citizens with different demographic characteristics, randomly selected from all 63 provinces.

PAPI aims to enable citizens to benchmark their governments’ performance and advocate for improvement while creating constructive competition and promoting learning among local authorities. Since the first pilot survey in 2009, PAPI has gathered voices from a total of 103,059 citizens who have participated in rigorous, face-to-face surveys and have shared their experiences and assessments of the performance by the State apparatus from the central to commune levels. With this time series data, the PAPI partners have produced annual reports providing multi-dimensional and comparative perspectives for central and local governments to review their performance at both the comprehensive and sector-specific levels.

The PAPI findings have had an impact, inspiring support for continuing the project in future years. In addition, almost every province has hosted local PAPI diagnostic workshops. To date, 51 of the country’s 63 provinces have issued action plans, directives, official letters or resolutions to request that local government agencies respond to the citizen feedback generated by PAPI. In 2017 alone, 16 of these 51 provinces issued new or renewed provincial responses with a one-year or three-year perspective, aiming at attaining higher citizen satisfaction with their performance. This is one example of how PAPI can serve as a means of verification for better governance and public administration at the local level, and can in turn inform the policy cycle at the central level in Viet Nam.

The 2017 PAPI Report, like previous annual reports, summarizes what national and provincial governments have done to improve their performance in governance and public administration, and provides suggestions about how they could better serve their citizens. Below are highlights of the national trends and main findings from the 2017 PAPI Report, as well as implications for policy and practical actions to improve the performance in governance and public administration by national and provincial authorities.

XIV PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

National Trends in Governance and Public Administration in 2017 Positive trends in overall performance of governments in their second year of the 2016-2021 term. The 2017 PAPI findings, presented in detail in Chapter 1, reveal positive overall trends worthy of note. There was improvement, although at different rates, in five of the six PAPI dimensions compared to 2016, in particular in the areas of Transparency, Vertical Accountability, Control of Corruption in the Public Sector, Public Administrative Procedures, and Public Service Delivery. In terms of citizen perspectives, different demographic groups perceived governance quality differently. Breakdowns of the PAPI dimensional scores by ethnicity and gender show that men and the Kinh majority held the most positive views across nearly all dimensions in 2017. The only dimension where gender and ethnicity did not matter greatly was Public Service Delivery.

More optimism about government performance in control of corruption in the public sector. Of all six dimensions, Control of Corruption in the Public Sector improved the most, with both perceptions and actual experiences exhibiting improvement. For instance, the percentage of citizens directly experiencing bribery when applying for land use rights certificates fell from 23% in 2016 to 17% in 2017. Another positive sign is that the rate of bribery experienced when using public district hospital services decreased from 17% in 2016 to 9% in 2017. However, tolerance of bribes slightly increased, with citizens indicating that an average bribe amount of 27.5 million VND would trigger the victim of corruption to denunciate the person requesting the bribe in 2017, compared to an average of 25.6 million VND in 2016. While these generally good results are welcome, it is important to note that they did not reach the levels of satisfaction found in 2012. Therefore, work remains on fighting corruption.

Narrower gender gap in land use titling. One important area of concern related to land is gender inequality in land use titling. The 2017 results show a narrowing of the gender gap: while 18% fewer women in rural areas reported having their names on land use certificates in 2016 compared to men, the difference fell by half to 9% in 2017.

Mixed feelings about land seizure and compensation. PAPI surveys have shown a substantial drop in the number of respondents reporting land seizures in their localities after the 2013 Land Law came into effect in 2014. The trend continued in 2017 with less than 7% reporting land seized, down from an average of about 9% prior to 2013. Nonetheless, a more concerning trend is that the level of satisfaction with compensation for land seizures declined in 2017. While 36% thought the compensation was at a fair market value in 2014, the percentage dropped to 21% in 2017.

Better and more inclusive health insurance coverage. The number of citizens with health insurance continued to increase, rising from 74% in 2016 to 81% in 2017. Further analysis shows that the strongest gains were made in rural population groups. In 2014, only 60% of rural residents had health insurance compared to 69% of urban residents. That gap narrowed in 2017 to less than 4%.

Increased pessimism about household economic conditions in the future. When asked about expectations of household economic conditions in the next five years, the survey results show a steady increase since 2014 in the number of citizens who think their household economic situation will worsen in the future. The increased pessimism is greater among the poorest Vietnamese. While only 13% of the Vietnamese with the lowest level of income in 2016 thought their economic situation would get worse, the percentage increased sharply to 21% in 2017.

Implications. Among areas of significant progress and disappointment that have policy and practice implications for central and local governments, the most important finding is the overall improvement in perceptions and experiences with provincial performance in control of corruption. Reversing a worrying trend since 2013, citizens provided more positive feedback on almost every indicator composing the dimension Control of Corruption in the Public Sector in 2017. This may reflect the recent crackdown on corruption at the national level, resulting in better control of corruption by local governments. It may also be attributed to the large media coverage of such efforts, giving some hope to

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XV

citizens. Although the scores are still not better than in 2011 and 2012, the reversal of the downward trend since 2013 is both noteworthy and welcome.

On the other hand, in terms of overall satisfaction with governance and public administration, women and ethnic minorities tended to give lower scores compared to ethnic majority Kinh and males in five out of six dimensions, with the exception of the dimension Public Service Delivery. This points to an issue with policy and practice implications for Viet Nam, especially as the country is implementing its national agenda towards more inclusive sustainable development by 2030.

Issues of Greatest Concerns in 2017 from Citizens’ Perspective

The second chapter looks more in-depth into issues important to Vietnamese citizens and the government. In 2017, the most important issue in the minds of Vietnamese citizens was poverty reduction. Environmental protection, while not as important as in 2016, was still an important issue as well.

Poverty—the most important issue. For three consecutive years (2015-2017), the issue of the greatest concern for citizens has been poverty. In 2017, 28% of respondents cited it as a top concern, an increase of 4% compared to 2016. Two prominent findings emerge from the analysis regarding why so many citizens demanded that the State address poverty. First, poor citizens were concerned about falling back into poverty. Importantly, in poor areas of the country, even wealthier citizens expressed concern that their relatives might suffer. However, more important than personal anxiety was the concern among many about the impact of poverty on the country’s overall development. The most common answer from the survey was that poverty reduction is imperative to ensuring that Viet Nam becomes an advanced, developed country.

High concern about the environment. The environment was the second most important issue to citizens in 2016, but dropped to the fourth issue of greatest concern in 2017; 7% of respondents cited it as a the most important issue, a drop by 5% compared to 2016. Additional analysis was conducted to assess the degree to which Vietnamese citizens prioritized environmental concerns when they come into conflict with economic concerns. Results show a

strong intolerance for projects and policies that would damage the environment. With regards to investment projects, citizens overwhelmingly said they would not welcome investments that might generate jobs if those projects would damage the environment. Similarly, citizens also were more concerned about the potential environmental impact of coal-fired power plants than the benefits from reducing power outages. This suggests that despite concerns about poverty, Vietnamese citizens are not willing to risk environmental damage for more economic growth.

Limited awareness of the Law on Access to Information and low use of e-government portals. The PAPI survey has tracked citizen awareness of the Law on Access to Information and the use of e-government portals over the past few years. These issues are important given the recent passage of the law and the continued investments in e-governance at the local level. In general, the findings show very little awareness of the law and limited use of e-governance portals. With regards to accessing information, citizens continue to rely on personal networks. Furthermore, the use of e-governance platforms is heavily related to education level and Internet coverage. With that said, this does not mean that such investments are wasted. As education levels and Internet access increase, these portals may become increasingly valuable.

Implications. Chapter 2 reveals important policy issues in Viet Nam: poverty reduction, environmental protection, and e-governance. The overarching takeaway is that Viet Nam’s increasing economic development creates more complicated and demanding governance challenges and opportunities. Many Vietnamese citizens, particularly the poor and those living in poorer provinces, were worried about either themselves or family members falling into poverty. However, the most consistent concern is that poverty is a drag on Viet Nam’s overall development. In particular, poverty deprives the country of a well-developed education system capable of training the next generation of workers.

At the same time, the analysis of environmental concerns shows that Vietnamese citizens are not willing to pursue economic development at any cost. Vietnamese citizens, particularly educated ones, show remarkable concern for the environment, even when there are economic trade-offs. This suggests a difficult juggling act for the government: how

XVI PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

to continue providing economic opportunities for all while remaining sensitive to environmental externalities of economic development.

Chapter 2 also shows that the use of government portals by citizens so far has been minimal. Further analysis suggests that while this should lead to concern, there are reasons to be optimistic. In particular, more educated citizens and those with Internet access are more likely to use these portals. As citizens increasingly gain in education and Internet connectivity, uptake may eventually increase. This suggests that the government should do more to enhance the usefulness and user-friendliness of the online tools, including downloadable forms, and, more importantly, greater efforts should go into increasing access to detailed information about processes and procedures that citizens need.

Provincial Performance in 2017

Trends in provincial performance

Overall, as Chapter 3 reveals, none of the 63 provinces excelled in all six PAPI dimensions in 2017. Quang Binh, Ben Tre and Bac Lieu were in the best performing groups in five out of the six dimensions, though Bac Lieu remained in the low average performing group in the Vertical Accountability dimension. There also was a trend of converging provincial performance, as seen from the lowest and highest aggregate provincial scores in 2017 compared to the previous years. Still, the gap in 2017 between provinces receiving the highest and the lowest scores (33.09 points) remains significant. And there is a significant disparity between the highest provincial score (39.52 points) and the potential maximum score of 60 points (on the scale of 10-60 points for all six dimensions). These findings indicate that provincial governments need to do more to satisfy their citizens’ expectations.

When comparing 2017 results with the 2012 results—both the second year of five-year government terms (2011-2016 and 2016-2021)—An Giang and Tra Vinh made significant progress in all three dimensions that were unchanged (Transparency in Local Decision-Making, Control of Corruption in the Public Sector and Public Service Delivery), with impressive increases of more than 10 points in each.

In terms of year-on-year changes (2017 against 2016) at the provincial level, none of the 63 provinces had significant declines, while seven provinces saw large improvements. Bac Lieu, Quang Ninh and Tra Vinh had the largest year-on-year increases (above 8%). When comparing 2016 and 2017 aggregate scores for the best performing group, 11 provinces (Bac Ninh, Hai Duong, Thai Binh, Nam Dinh, Ninh Binh, Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri, Binh Dinh, Ben Tre and Can Tho) maintained their status in this group. Meanwhile, Bac Giang, Phu Tho, Da Nang and Dong Thap fell back to the high average group, and Hung Yen fell into the low average group.

Highlights of provincial performance changes by dimension, 2016 to 2017

Citizen participation at local levels. Thirteen provinces achieved significant improvements while 14 saw significant declines from their 2016 performance levels. Hau Giang, Dien Bien and Dak Lak need to do more to improve their performance in engaging citizens at the local level. Amidst the progress made at the provincial level was a significant increase in the proportion of citizens reporting that local projects are monitored by citizen-led Community Investment Supervision Boards (up from 21% in 2016 to 34% in 2017). However, fewer contributors to the projects had opportunities to provide comments in local project design (the rate fell from 36% in 2016 to 33% in 2017).

Transparency in local decision-making. Fifteen provinces significantly improved their performance levels compared to 2016, with Bac Lieu, Quang Ninh and Ba Ria-Vung Tau seeing the largest increases in their scores. Meanwhile, 11 provinces (in particular Quang Ngai and Tien Giang) saw significant declines. Overall, however, the progress in this dimension was insignificant, with the greatest increase seen in the proportion of citizens confirming that commune budgets and expenditures were made publicly available (up from 32% in 2016 to 36% in 2017). A key shortcoming that remains is transparency of land planning, with only around 4% of citizens reporting that they had opportunities to provide comments on local land plans in both 2016 and 2017.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XVII

Vertical accountability towards citizens. Twenty-seven provinces made significant improvements, with the most impressive being Thai Binh, Vinh Long and Dong Nai; each increased their year-on-year score by more than 15%. On the contrary, 18 provinces saw significant declines, with the dimensional scores for Da Nang and Dak Nong declining by 15% compared to 2016. Overall, there was a slight increase in the proportions of citizens interacting with local authorities when facing any issue (for instance, 17% met with a commune government official in 2017, up from 14% in 2016). Nonetheless, fewer were satisfied with the outcomes of these meetings with commune officials (reported satisfaction fell from 83% in 2016 to 81% in 2017).

Control of corruption in the public sector. Over half of all provinces (33) saw a significant year-on-year improvement in this dimension. Quang Ninh, Bac Lieu, Ba Ria-Vung Tau, Lao Cai and An Giang received the greatest acknowledgement by their citizens for their improved efforts to control corruption in the public sector in 2017, with their scores rising by 20% or more from the prior year. Among the six provinces that saw significant declines are Dak Nong, Hung Yen and Hai Phong, with their scores dropping by 9% or more. Overall, there were lower rates of citizens saying that bribery was taking place in their provinces. However, among those that paid bribes across the country, only about 3% of the victims said they would denunciate the bribe requests in 2017, the same level as in 2016.

Public administrative procedures. As in previous years, the change in provincial performance in this area year-on-year was insignificant. Eight provinces saw an increase in their score by more than 5%, including Bac Lieu and Binh Phuoc which saw rises of 7% or more. Can Tho, Bac Kan and Ha Tinh were the three provinces that had significant declines. Overall, citizens seemed to be more satisfied with administrative procedures at local one-stop shops in three out of the four services that PAPI measures (certification, construction permits, and personal documents). For services related land use rights certificates, however, there remains room for improvement; there was a slight decrease in the total quality of the services for land use rights certificates (down from 2.64 points in 2016 to 2.55 points in 2017 on the scale of 0-4 points).

Public service delivery. Changes in this dimension have been gradual, though Vinh Long and Quang Tri were among eight provinces with improvements greater than 5%. Interestingly, Binh Duong and Da Nang are the only two provinces with decreases in dimensional scores of more than 5% compared to 2016. Overall, there was a slight increase in the total quality of public primary schools and an insignificant decrease in the total quality of district public hospitals in all provinces over the two years of 2016 and 2017. Both indicators show a large gap between the current status of provinces in these areas and expected maximum scores, implying that both sectors need to do more to satisfy citizens.

Implications

Chapter 3 presents overall dimensional and sub-dimensional findings on provincial performance in 2017 in a comparative perspective within and between provinces and over time. With the aggregate scores, provinces can assess how they have progressed over time, and how they compare with other provinces of similar socio-economic and geographic characteristics. It is important to reiterate that, as an aggregate index, PAPI serves as a “first cut” of a province’s performance in a certain year in a comprehensive manner, much like a primary care physician providing an overview to her/his client of their health. To understand what they can do to improve the performance of their province, provincial leaders are advised to examine findings for each indicator of the PAPI dimensions and sub-dimensions provided in the respective provincial profiles.

Also, findings in Chapter 3 reveal key areas of progress as well as setbacks in the first two years of the current government term by comparing 2017 with 2016 indicators and changes over time since 2011. The results suggest areas where central and local governments should do more to improve their performance in governance and public administration. Furthermore, the indicators provided in PAPI help Viet Nam to review its performance related to implementation of the National Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

INTRODUCTION

PAPI2017

What is PAPI?

The Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) is the country’s largest annual time-series, citizen-centric, nationwide policy monitoring tool. As the section ‘Snapshot of PAPI from 2009-2017’ notes, over the years PAPI has collected the views of 103,059 randomly selected citizens about the country’s performance in governance and public administration, based on their direct interactions with local governments at different levels. PAPI generates information about the actual performance of local authorities in meeting citizen needs. By doing so, it has created constructive competition and promoted learning among local authorities, while enabling citizens to benchmark their local government’s performance and advocate for improvements.

What Does PAPI Measure? PAPI is a quantitative measurement tool that offers a comprehensive picture of how central and provincial governments have performed on an annual basis. PAPI provides data and evidence that reflect six dimensions of government performance: (i) participation in elections and policymaking at the local level, (ii) transparency in decision-making, (iii) vertical accountability, (iv) control of corruption in the public sector, (v) public administrative procedures, and (vi) public service delivery. PAPI has helped

different national stakeholders to understand how governance and public administration in Viet Nam has changed over time and has suggested ways to address governance bottlenecks.

What Moves PAPI Forward?

PAPI has had a large impact, inspiring the continuation of this important project. To date, as Appendix A details, almost every province has hosted or convened a PAPI diagnostic workshop. Of the nation’s 63 provinces, 51 have issued action plans, directives, official letters and/or resolutions to request that local government agencies respond to citizen feedback through PAPI. In 2017 alone, 16 of these 51 provinces issued new or renewed provincial responses with a one- or three-year perspective, aiming at attaining higher citizen satisfaction with their performance. PAPI is expected to serve as a means of verification for better governance and public administration at the local level, while also informing the policy cycle for the central level in Viet Nam.

Such achievements are due to stronger political and substantive support from central and local governments. The former President the Viet Nam Fatherland Front and current Party Chief of Ho Chi Minh City, Nguyen Thien Nhan, praised PAPI for its innovative contribution to public administration reforms in Viet Nam and said he considers it a tool to hear citizens’ feedback about the municipal

2 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

government’s performance.1 Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc, during his missions to different provinces (e.g., Soc Trang, Ninh Binh, Phu Yen, Thua Thien-Hue, Bac Ninh, Thanh Hoa, Hau Giang), requested that the provincial governments maintain and/or improve their PAPI scores.2 Also, at the Ha Noi Municipal People’s Council meeting on 3 July 2017, National Assembly Chairperson Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan reminded local government representatives to take action to improve their performance in governance and public administration, since Ha Noi’s 2016 PAPI scores were lower than their (poor) scores in previous years.3 The National Assembly Library has also been sharing PAPI reports with parliament members over the past several years in order to bring PAPI findings to the table for discussions at different National Assembly sessions. Additionally, the Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics (HCMA) conducted action research in Bac Kan, Lam Dong and Dong Nai to investigate why citizens were not satisfied with local government services in these provinces, and two of the three provinces issued action plans to improve their performance in response to PAPI findings. Furthermore, in 2017 an increasing number of provinces are using their own provincial budgets to convene PAPI diagnostic workshops.

PAPI has also received substantive buy-in and financial support from different stakeholders. The index has been highlighted as a useful tool and a good practice to measure citizen satisfaction at the global level by UNDP, which referred to PAPI when supporting national statistics offices to develop a methodology to measure the Sustainable Development Goal 16.6.2 indicator on citizens’ last experience with public services.4 The PAPI data and methodology have also been widely shared with and used by global research institutions, including by the United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-Wider) for their ongoing research to understand how institutional quality and government performance affects individual-

1 See Ho Chi Minh City’s Party Website (29 August 2017).

2 As per Google search using relevant keywords on 11 January 2018.

3 See Thanh Nien (03 July 2017).

4 See UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (November 2017).

level decision-making; by the Gothenburg-based Programmes on Governance and Local Development;5 and by the OECD Development Centre for their 2017 report Youth Well-being Policy Review of Viet Nam.6 Most significantly, PAPI is now able to continue until 2021 thanks to financial support from several sources including the Government of Switzerland through the end of June 2017, new funding from the Australian Government for the period 2018-2021, and funding from the Government of Ireland for 2018 activities.

What Does the 7th Annual PAPI Report Present?

The 2017 PAPI Report is the seventh in an annual series of PAPI reports since the first nationwide survey in 2011, and the ninth report since the PAPI pilot in 2009. This report presents the voices and feedback from 14,097 citizens randomly selected from all demographic backgrounds (see Appendix C) across the country’s 63 provinces for face-to-face interviews in 2017.

The aims of this report are three-fold. First, it presents key survey findings at the national and provincial levels, identifies strengths and weaknesses in policy implementation, and suggests actionable measures based on the 2017 PAPI research. Second, because 2017 marked the second year of the 2016-2021 government term in Viet Nam, the report provides information on how provincial governments did in their second year in office, and provides suggestions about what they can do better in the coming years from a citizens’ perspective. Third, it shows how PAPI helps Viet Nam to identify areas that need greater attention as the country rolls out its national agenda for sustainable development towards 2030. In the same spirit as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that Viet Nam has committed to, PAPI puts citizens at the heart of Viet Nam’s development. As ‘end users’ of public administration and public services, citizens are fully capable of assessing the performance of the central and local authorities and of supporting the country in building a State “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

5 See the Program on Governance and Local Development’s Newsletter (October 2017).

6 See OECD (2017).

INTRODUCTION 3

What Informs PAPI and the 2017 PAPI Report?

Data-driven policymaking has been an emerging trend in Viet Nam. Never before have the State and government agencies at the central and local levels in Viet Nam paid so much attention to feedback from businesses and citizens.7 Such initiatives have been complemented by non-government sources of governance data, with the three largest nationwide surveys being the Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI), the Viet Nam Justice Index (VJI)8 of UNDP and its co-implementing partners, and the Provincial Competitiveness Index (PCI) of the Viet Nam Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

The move towards using data and evidence in assessment of the performance of state and public agencies has been strengthened lately. In the Conclusions of the Viet Nam Communist Party Committee’s National Congress in October 2017,9 independent monitoring was emphasized as a mechanism to review the performance of public service providers, in addition to the emphasis on strengthening transparency and vertical accountability of authorities. This shows that evidence-based policymaking and efforts to improve performance through mechanisms to collect and reference feedback from citizens and businesses has been placed at the core of Viet Nam’s efforts to attain better governance and improve the performance of the State sector.

In addition, more information has been disclosed to the public over the past ten years, although at an uneven level, as evidenced through the expansion

7 A number of large and small-scale business and citizen satisfaction surveys have been conducted since the mid-2000s in a few provinces (e.g., Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang), as well as at the central level since 2014 with the launch of the Public Administration Performance Index (PAR-Index) by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Provincial Anti-corruption Assessment Index (PACA) by the Government Inspectorate. Some provinces (e.g., Quang Tri and Quang Binh) started assessing public service quality through mobile telephone-based citizen feedback mechanisms (e.g., the M-Scores tools).

8 See CECODES, Vietnam Lawyers Association (VLA) and UNDP (2013 & 2015). The Viet Nam Justice Index (VJI)

9 See Voice of Viet Nam (11 October 2017).

of local government online portals and in the PAPI and PCI findings.10 The Law on Access to Information, which comes into effect on 1 July 2018, mandates that public agencies and public institutions disclose information that are not state secrets. This will be the foundation for a systematic approach to transparency, vertical accountability and access to information in Viet Nam. With extensive discussions conducted in 2016 and 2017 on development of by-laws to guide implementation of the Law on Access to Information, citizens should have been consulted and become more aware of the law.

The year 2017 also witnessed scaled-up efforts to combat corruption at the national level in policy and practice, which may have shaped public awareness. Amendments to the 2005 Law on Anti-corruption were discussed as part of the 2017 Legislative Development Agenda for the National Assembly.11 Also, the preparations for trials of major corruption cases involving influential high-level public officials were widely covered in the media in 2017.

How is the 2017 PAPI Report Structured?

The PAPI 2017 Report contains three chapters. Chapter 1 covers overall national performance in the areas of governance and public administration in 2017, and includes a comparison with national trends in previous years (2011-2016). Chapter 2 takes a close look at what citizens viewed as important issues in 2017 and the policy implications. Chapter 3 presents aggregated and disaggregated findings for provinces in 2017 at the dimensional, sub-dimensional, and indicator levels, as well as time series comparisons for 2011-2017 for indicators that have remained unchanged over time. Chapter 3 closes with an overview of aggregate performance for all provinces, and for the first time presents 63 provincial profiles, providing provincial leaders and practitioners with immediate views of what they have achieved and where they can do to improve.

10 See data collected from government portals, citizens and businesses from the World Bank (2014); CECODES, VFF-CRT and UNDP (2011-2016); and Malesky et al. (2005-2016).

11 See Nhan Dan Dien Tu (22 June 2017).

4 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

The report also includes three appendices. Appendix A provides an update of provincial responses to PAPI findings by the end of 2017. Appendix B provides data on how Viet Nam has done in terms of implementation of the 2030 Agenda for the Sustainable Development Goals through indicators that PAPI measures. Lastly, Appendix C provides demographic characteristics of

the 2017 PAPI sample, including gender, ethnicity, age, occupation, education level and disability.

The report is accompanied by the PAPI website (www.papi.org.vn), which includes up-to-date and detailed provincial profiles, case studies, and policy responses.

INTRODUCTION 5

PAPIThe Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index

22

90500

103,059

63207 Districts

Communes

Villages

06 Dimensions

414

828

20172016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

14,09714,063

13,955

13,552

13,892

13,747

13,642

5,568

543

© 2018 CECODES, Centre for Research and Training of the Viet Nam Fatherland Front , RTA, UNDP

Qu

estions about Viet Nam’s policy

mat

ters

Indicators

Sub-dimensions

Prov

ince

s and municipalities

from all demographic backgrounds face-to-face interviewed

CITIZENS

Citizens are at the heart of Viet Nam’s development. As ‘end-users’ of public administration and public services they are fully capable of assessing the performance of the State and local authorities

From 2009 to 2017

Development Philosophy

Dimensions

Part

icip

atio

n at

Loc

al L

evel

s

Decisi

on-making

Transp

arency

in Local

Vertical Accountability

towards

Citizens

Control of Corruptionin the Public SectorPublic Administrative

Procedures

Public Service

Delivery

01

02

03 04

05

06

CITIZENSAT THE CENTRE

83.5% 16.5%Kinh non-Kinh

CHAPTER01

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE, 2011-2017

Overview

Since its inception in 2009, PAPI has provided annual overviews of national progress in governance and public administration performance. Its benchmark for public policy implementation—based on citizens’ experiences, perspectives and expectations—is based on six dimensions, 22 sub-dimensions and more than 90 indicators that come together to create the overall PAPI index. Thus, the index provides a mirror, reflecting what works and what does not work in governance and public administration reforms, and helps heads of national government agencies to identity measures to address bottlenecks.

This chapter reviews national trends at aggregated and disaggregated levels, focusing on issues of greatest interest for policymakers and citizens. First, it provides an overview of national performance at the dimensional and sub-dimensional levels compared with previous years. It then focuses on the indicators exhibiting the most change and/or those with the greatest policy relevance. It therefore updates findings for two important issues that PAPI has followed since 2011: corruption and land use titling. Also, following the surge in health insurance penetration in 2016, the chapter tracks whether insurance provision continued to increase in 2017. Finally, the chapter reviews overall levels of satisfaction with household economic conditions. For each of these discussions, the analysis pays special attention to any differences in experiences of ethnic minorities and women.

The 2017 PAPI findings reveal several positive overall trends worthy of note. First, the survey reveals

improvement across a range of indicators compared to 2016. In particular, the dimension Control of Corruption in the Public Sector was a notable bright spot, with both perceptions and actual experiences reflecting improvement. Additionally, 2017 saw a continued increase in the number of citizens reporting that they have access to health insurance. Finally, the 2017 results show a remarkable closing of the gender gap in land use titling.

The 2017 findings also reveal some causes for concern. First, satisfaction with compensation for land seizures declined. Second, those in the poorest rungs of the economic ladder are more pessimistic about their future economic situations. This is important because citizens’ pessimism about their livelihoods is linked to low satisfaction with governance and public administration.

National Trends from 2011 to 2017

The 2017 PAPI shows consistency with the 2016 results in most areas (see Figure 1.1). There was improvement, although at different rates, in five dimensions: Transparency, Vertical Accountability, Control of Corruption in the Public Sector, Public Administrative Procedures and Public Service Delivery. One dimension that saw a minor decrease is Participation at the Local Levels. In particular, the most significant improvement was with the dimension Control of Corruption in the Public Sector; the aggregate dimensional score surged from 5.80 in 2016 to 6.15 in 2017. This is particularly remarkable given that the Control of Corruption dimension had witnessed a steady decline since 2013 (see Figure 1.1a).

8 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

5.375.255.204.994.88

5.35 5.345.64

5.795.92 5.88

5.435.615.69

5.605.685.73

5.735.60

4.89 5.03

5.695.93

6.156.065.82

5.80

6.15

6.90 6.966.96 6.89

6.857.12

7.16

6.746.916.916.99

7.017.067.14

0

2

4

6

8

Dim

ensi

onal

Sco

res (

Scal

e: 1

-10

poin

ts)

Dimension 1:Participation at

Local Levels

Dimension 2:Transparency

Dimension 3:Vertical

Accountability

Dimension 4:Control ofCorruption

Dimension 5:Public Administrative

Procedures

Dimension 6:Public Service

Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 1.1a: Changes in Mean Scores for Comparable Dimensions, 2011-2017

Figure 1.1: PAPI Mean Scores by Dimensions, 2011-2017

-2.29

-0.91

-4.06

-2.20

9.70

-0.27

2.672.35

-0.76

-7.59

3.31

1.39 1.421.00

-0.00

-2.23

-12.72

2.93

4.253.69

-1.40

-3.95

-0.31

5.95

0.900.02

-1.05-0.56

3.89

0.65

2.38

0.121.06

0.300.72

1.11

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

Perc

enta

ge o

f Cha

nge

in D

imen

sion

Sco

re

Dimension 1:Participation at

Local Levels

Dimension 2:Transparency

Dimension 3:Vertical

Accountability

Dimension 4:Control ofCorruption

Dimension 5:Public Administrative

Procedures

Dimension 6:Public Service

Delivery

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Note: Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 were reorganized in 2016. Comparison of scores in these dimensions is only valid for 2016 and 2017.

Note: Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 were reorganised in 2016. Comparisons in these dimensions are relative.

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 1 9

Figure 1.2: Dimensional Mean Scores by Gender and Ethnicity, 2017

5.58

5.125.38

5.00

5.78 5.62 5.78

5.33 5.184.90 5.06

4.85

6.326.00 6.16

5.94

7.24 7.10 7.207.00 7.14 7.14 7.21 7.04

0

2

4

6

8

Dim

ensi

on S

core

s (Sc

ale

1-10

)

Dimension 1:Participation at

Local Levels

Dimension 2:Transparency

Dimension 3:Vertical

Accountability

Dimension 4:Control ofCorruption

Dimension 5:Public Administrative

Procedures

Dimension 6:Public Service

Delivery

Male Female Kinh Minority

The breakdown of the PAPI scores by ethnicity and gender in Figure 1.2 shows that men and the Kinh majority held the most positive views across nearly all dimensions in 2017. The only dimension where gender

and ethnicity did not matter greatly is Public Service Delivery. While the PAPI survey does not identify the source of the differences in perceptions of governance, future surveys will delve into this issue in greater depth.

Corruption in the Public Sector as Perceived and Experienced by Citizens

The following section focuses specifically on the corruption indicators given the pronounced improvements and the clear importance of this issue at the national level. The survey has three types of questions pertaining to corruption. First, it asks about experiences with and perceptions of petty corruption, particularly bribes for public services and administrative procedures. Second, the survey explores issues of nepotism in public sector hiring. Finally, it looks at the willingness to fight corruption by both local governments and citizens.

The results for 2017 show pronounced improvements across a range of indicators. As Figure 1.3 shows, citizens were less likely to observe corruption in the

public sector, in public service delivery, or in hiring for government positions. The one area that did not see as much improvement was citizens’ perception that local governments were willing to fight corruption. These findings suggest that while corruption in local governments is seen as less of a problem, local governments themselves are not significantly more likely to root out corruption proactively. One possible explanation is that the perceptions of reduced corruption are more related to efforts at the central level in handling high-profile corruption cases rather than to those of local-level governments in controlling everyday corruption. However, future surveys will need to assess this more carefully.

10 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

14

46

14

47

14

47

15

49

14

51

16

54

17

48

16

42

14

43

15

43

16

43

15

43

14

39

16

36

13

30

13

28

13

29

14

33

15

36

17

38

15

33

12

25

9

22

11

25

11

26

11

33

14

35

14

32

11

25

11

26

11

28

13

30

12

31

12

31

12

28

12

22

12

21

11

20

12

23

12

25

16

28

12

22

0

20

40

60

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

StateEmployement

PublicHealthcare

Service

Land Use RightsCerti�cate

Procedures

TeacherFavoritism

ConstructionPermit

Procedures

Diversion ofState Funds

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172011

20122013

20142015

20162017

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172011

20122013

20142015

20162017

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172011

20122013

20142015

20162017

Somewhat Agree Agree

Figure 1.4: Trends in Corruption as Perceived by Citizens, 2011-2017

Figure 1.3: Trends in the Control of Corruption in the Public Sector Dimension, 2011-2017

1.391.45

1.581.53

1.44 1.44

1.60

1.74 1.761.82

1.79 1.76 1.791.87

0.910.95

1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91

1.01

1.64

1.76 1.75 1.781.70 1.67 1.68

0

.5

1

1.5

2

Sub-

Dim

ensi

on S

core

s (Sc

ale

1-2.

5)

Limits on PublicSector Corruption

Limits on Corruption inPublic Services

Equity in Employment Willingness toFight Corruption

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 1.4 indicates specific areas where citizens have concerns about corruption. It shows that across nearly all indicators, citizens believed there were lower levels of corruption in 2017. The percentage of respondents agreeing or somewhat agreeing that they need to pay a bribe for state employment, healthcare, and land rights certificates plunged after years of steady

increase. Concerns about the diversion of state funds for personal use also declined. Figure 1.5 tells a similar story about perceptions of the need for personal connections to access state employment. All of these indicators suggest that recent anti-corruption efforts may be having an impact on citizen perceptions of petty corruption.

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 1 11

55.9

973

.23

55.1

071

.34

53.7

372

.24

54.0

774

.56

52.1

276

.97

49.5

176

.05

47.5

074

.50

55.7

271

.99

55.8

769

.26

52.2

268

.80

54.1

072

.14

54.2

075

.55

53.0

174

.85

50.2

172

.42

56.7

372

.21

53.8

367

.19

51.2

666

.51

52.6

967

.81

52.0

770

.15

51.7

070

.33

47.5

867

.49

53.8

568

.30

50.1

162

.02

50.4

863

.89

52.6

167

.41

51.6

369

.03

53.6

870

.49

48.8

669

.38

54.3

769

.44

51.9

463

.71

52.1

766

.27

54.8

668

.95

54.3

170

.40

53.4

469

.36

49.5

267

.34

0

20

40

60

80

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Land Registrar Justice O�cer Commune Police Primary SchoolTeacher

People's CommitteeSta�

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172011

20122013

20142015

20162017

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172011

20122013

20142015

20162017

20112012

20132014

20152016

2017

Somewhat Important Very Important

Figure 1.5: Importance of Personal Connections to Access State Employment, 2011-2017

Table 1.1: Trends in Corruption as Experienced by Citizens, 2012-2017

Analysis Technique Year Land Use Rights Certificates

Public Health Care at District Level

Frequency estimated from size(1)

2017 17% 9%

2016 23% 17%

2015 44% 12%

2014 24% 12%

2013 32.7% 20.3%

2012 17% 10%

(1) Reports the share of respondents in the treatment group who answered that they paid more for items than those in the control group.

In addition, Table 1.1 summarizes experiences with actual corruption. It shows the results from an experimental survey measuring the number of citizens that have paid bribes for land use right certificates (LURCs) or hospital services without them actually having to admit to doing so. The utility of the

experiment is that it protects citizens from having to reveal sensitive information and thus induces them to provide more truthful responses. The table shows that, consistent with the perceptions indicators, citizens were less likely to pay bribes for these services in 2017 than in previous years.

Regarding willingness to fight corruption by local governments and citizens, Figure 1.3 shows that there was little change compared to 2016. Disaggregation of 2017 PAPI data reveals that an unprecedented low number of respondents said they knew about the Anti-corruption Law (39.8% in 2017 compared to

above 40% in earlier years). The tolerance for bribes also slightly increased, with respondents saying that an average estimated bribe amount of 27.5 million VND would trigger any victim of corruption to denunciate the relevant official in 2017, compared to an estimate of 25.6 million VND in 2016.

12 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

All in all, these findings tell a positive story about recent efforts to root out corruption. Recent anti-corruption campaigns seem to have had a measurable effect on perceptions of corruption. At the same time, it is important to note that while there has been improvement since 2016, the level of concern about corruption remains high (see Chapter 2), and the level of satisfaction in 2017 is still lower than the best scores since 2009. For most of the indicators, scores in 2017 were not as good as, or not better than, the scores in 2012 and 2013. Therefore, while progress has been made, more work remains to be done.

9.4610.71

9.07 8.72 9.35 10.12

5.72 5.417.43

4.976.82

3.58

6.65

3.02

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Respondent Relative/Friend

Figure 1.6: Percentage of Citizens Reporting Land Seizures, 2011-2017

More concerning is the declining satisfaction with the level of compensation for land seized. Figure 1.7 suggests that there has been a steady decrease in the satisfaction level since the revised Land Law was introduced in 2013. While 36% thought the compensation was at a fair market value in 2014, that percentage dropped to 21% in 2017. This provides some evidence for the source of persistent concerns about land. While overall seizures are down, compensation levels are increasingly seen as insufficient. This might have triggered the high

number of citizen complaints in 2017 about land administration; over 95% of the complaints that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) received in the first six months of the year were about land administration.12 However, in one positive development, there was an upward trend in direct compensation for land seized, as more of those who lost land were compensated in monetary terms (Figure 1.8).

Land Seizure and Compensation, and Access to Land Titles

One consistent focus of PAPI centers on land use rights and access to land. After the 2013 Land Law came into effect in 2014, subsequent surveys showed a substantial drop in the number of respondents reporting land seizures by government authorities in their localities. As Figure 1.6 shows, the decrease was sustained in 2017, with less than 7% reporting having land seized in the previous year. This is down from an average of about 9% prior to the 2013 Land Law. From the perspective of citizens, this is a positive development.

12 See Thoi Bao Tai Chinh Viet Nam (29 July 2017).

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 1 13

36.54

28.83 27.0921.17

49.47 47.2941.59

37.90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Myself/My Family My Neighbour

2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 1.7: Percentage of Respondents Reporting that Land Compensation was Fair, 2014-2017

Figure 1.8: Types of Compensation Received for Land, 2014-2017

23.88

64.13

11.99

27.53

49.57

22.90

32.54

52.39

15.07

26.69

56.70

16.60

9.93

65.81

24.2620.71

51.85

27.44

10.11

49.80

40.09

12.25

53.91

33.84

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Myself/My Family Neighbor

2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017

No Compensation Monetary Other

Finally, picking up on a finding from 2016, the 2017 survey assessed again whether women were less likely to have their names placed on LURCs. The 2017 results (Figure 1.9) show a dramatic narrowing of the

gap. While 18% fewer women than men in rural areas reported having their names on land use certificates in 2016,13 that difference dropped by half in 2017 to 9%.

13 See CECODES, VFF-CRT and UNDP (2017), page 15.

14 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Table 1.2 reveals the source of the decline. In 2016, 11.14% of women said they did not have their names on the LURC because they were not the head of the household. In 2017, that number dropped to 7.93%.

Also showing a decline was the percentage of women that did not have LURCs because their spouse’s name was on the certificate. This number dropped from 12.58% in 2017 to 11.30% in 2017.

Figure 1.9: Gender Gap in Land Registration, 2017

77.4

69.8

78.2

72.4

79.5

70.2

7.6 % Di�erence

5.8 % Di�erence 9.3 % Di�erence

60

65

70

75

80

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Male Female UrbanMale

UrbanFemale

RuralMale

RuralFemale

The findings paint a mixed picture for land use rights. While land seizures are down, citizens are increasingly dissatisfied with compensation levels. On a more positive note, the gender gap in citizens with names on land use titles has narrowed.

Access to Public Health Insurance

As highlighted in the 2016 PAPI Report, there was a dramatic increase in the number of citizens with health insurance, up from 63% in 2015 to 74% in 2016. The 2017 survey revisited this question to assess whether that trend has continued. Indeed, Figure 1.10 shows a continuation in the increase, with the coverage in 2017 reaching 81%.

To assess where the increases have been most pronounced, the analysis breaks down the results by ethnicity, region and gender. While all groups have benefited, the results show little difference between men and women; both had health insurance coverage at nearly identical rates. Also, the disaggregation by urban and rural areas (Figure 1.11) reveals that the strongest gains have been made in rural areas. In 2014, only 60% of rural residents had insurance compared to 69% of urban residents. That gap narrowed in 2017 to less than a 4% difference. Surprisingly, as Figure 1.12 shows, the proportion of respondents with health insurance within ethnic minorities was higher than the rate within the ethnic majority Kinh.

Table 1.2: Reasons for Not Having Name on LURC, 2016-2017

ReasonsMale Female

2016 2017 2016 2017

Parent’s name on LURCs 15.04% 13.21% 8.91% 8.23%

Not head of household 5.46% 5.76% 11.14% 7.93%

Spouse’s name on LURCs 1.99% 1.74% 12.58% 11.30%

Other reason 1.18% 1.76% 3.11% 1.94%

Total without names on LURCs 23.67% 22.47% 35.74% 29.40%

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 1 15

Figure 1.10: Percentage of Citizens with Health Insurance, 2011-2017

57.28 56.9657.23 60.89 62.85

73.66

80.68

0

20

40

60

80

Perc

enta

ge

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 1.11: Percentage of Citizens with Health Insurance by Region, 2014-2017

69.05 69.88

77.4882.79

0

20

40

60

80

2014 2015 2016 2017

60.0362.54

71.47

79.54

0

20

40

60

80

2014 2015 2016 2017

Urban Rural

Perc

enta

ge

Perc

enta

ge

53.98 53.48 52.3956.37

59.59

71.80

79.23

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge

Kinh

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

66.86

55.96

66.08

76.85

69.64

77.86

89.98

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge

Minority

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 1.12: Percentage of Citizens with Health Insurance by Ethnicity, 2017

16 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Satisfaction with Household Economic Conditions

Finally, reflecting the government’s concern with economic development, PAPI asks citizens about their satisfaction with their economic situation and their assessment of their prospects for the future. Economic satisfaction is important for two reasons.

First, it is important in its own right. If citizens are not satisfied with their economic conditions, this represents an important concern for the government. Second, economic satisfaction can have a significant impact on perceptions of governance. As Table 1.3 shows, individuals with higher levels of economic satisfaction are more likely to have higher evaluations of governance quality.14

Table 1.3: Average PAPI Scores by Economic Satisfaction Level, 2017

Status (Self-Assessment) Economic Situation: Change from Last 5 Years

Economic Situation Now Economic Situation: Change in Next

5 Years

Better/Good 37.26 38.55 37.36

No Change/Not Good Nor Bad 35.37 36.52 36.02

Worse/Bad 35.19 34.7 35.72

Notes: Numbers represent the average PAPI scores for respondents in each grouping.

Consistent with previous years, Figure 1.13 shows that the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese citizens said their economic situation was neither good nor bad. This proportion was unchanged in 2017. As in previous years, reported current economic satisfaction among respondents varied depending on their demographic characteristics. While there was only a slight difference between men and women, ethnic minorities were more likely to report that their current economic situation is poor (22%) compared to ethnic majority Kinh (13%).

Where there are some causes for concern are in citizens’ prospects for their future economic situation.

As Figure 1.14 shows, while most Vietnamese think their economic situations will improve, there has been a steady increase since 2014 in the number of citizens that think their economic situation will worsen in the next five years. The increased pessimism is not related to gender or ethnicity. Rather, the difference, as Figure 1.15 shows, is mainly attributable to pessimism among the poorest Vietnamese. While only 13% of respondents from households with the lowest level of income in 2016 thought their economic situation would get worse in the future, that rate surged to 21% in 2017. The decreasing sense of opportunity among those from the poorest households will be something to watch in the coming years.

14 These correlations remain in regression analyses that holds constant other factors that might correlate with economic satisfaction and governance evaluations such as income, education, or ethnicity.

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 1 17

19.6820.81 19.31

16.6619.70

14.79 15.15

68.75 68.81 70.6072.98

69.7172.67 71.49

11.57 10.38 10.0910.36 10.5912.5413.36

0

20

40

60

80

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Bad Neither Good Nor Bad Good

2011 2012 2013 2014

2015 2016 2017

5.64 6.52 7.17 6.829.56 9.00

10.87

24.3526.15

24.34 24.0623.47

23.1421.81

57.0655.68

57.7157.32

52.0953.63

52.76

12.9511.65 10.79

11.8014.88

14.2214.55

0

20

40

60

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Worse Same Better Don't Know

2011 2012 2013 2014

2015 2016 2017

Figure 1.13: Citizens’ Perception of Current Household Economic Situation, 2011-2017

Figure 1.14: Perceived Economic Situation in the Next Five Years, 2011-2017

18 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

These results show that while most citizens remain optimistic, there is concern that those with the lowest levels of income are seeing opportunities decrease. As the next chapter shows, this also has implications for income tax policies. Although the evidence here is not large, if the trend continues it would suggest that future policies may need to consider the distributional consequences of policies promoting economic growth.

Implications

This chapter has provided a national-level picture of governance and public administration in Viet Nam in 2017, as well as a retrospective view of trends over the period 2011-2016. It has presented information reflecting significant progress in certain aspects of governance and public administration and declines in others, with relevant policy and practice implications for central and local governments.

The most important finding is the overall improvement in perceptions and experiences with control of corruption. Reversing a worrying trend since 2013, perceptions of levels of corruption fell across almost all indicators. Although still not better than in 2011 and 2012, the reversal of this trend is both noteworthy and welcome. This may reflect the recent surge in anti-corruption developments at the

national level, resulting in better control of corruption by local governments—as reflected in reduced incidences of citizens experiencing requests for bribes in acquiring LURCs or when using public hospitals. The improvement in perceptions of corruption control may also be attributed to the significant media coverage of such efforts—as reflected in the perception-based indicators in the dimension Control of Corruption in the Public Sector—giving some hope to citizens.

Improvements were also evident in two other issues highlighted in 2016. First, health insurance expanded once again, particularly in rural areas. This positive trend reflects ongoing efforts to increase health insurance coverage for all, and the removal of barriers to citizens with health insurance attending their hospitals of choice. Additional inclusive policies like these should be developed in order to continue the momentum to achieve the health sector’s 2020 target to provide health care coverage to all citizens.

The second positive trend was the precipitous fall in the discrepancy between men and women in land registration. This trend reflects the effectiveness of actions taken to improve gender equity in land titling, an area of significant progress compared to

13

21

128 6

106 7 5 4

2825 24

21 22 22 22 21 2318

4340

49

56 57 56

6259

6367

0

20

40

60

80

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Worse Same Better

Lowest

Low-Mid

Middle

Mid-High

Highest

Lowest

Low-Mid

Middle

Mid-High

Highest

Lowest

Low-Mid

Middle

Mid-High

Highest

2016 2017

Figure 1.15: Perceived Economic Situation in the Next Five Years by Income, 2016-2017

NATIONAL TRENDS IN GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 1 19

2016. Nonetheless, more efforts should be made to encourage women to co-sign their household land rights certificates to further narrow the gap.

Some areas of concern to focus on in future surveys include land issues. First, while land seizures were down, the level of satisfaction with compensation for land seized, which has been persistently low in previous PAPI surveys, declined in 2017. Enhanced transparency and deliberative public consultation around land compensation options should be priorities in implementation of land seizures at all levels.15 These measures will help reduce land-related complaints and disputes.

Second, optimism among the poorest citizens about their household economic situation declined in 2017. This suggests some linkage with the persistent concerns about poverty among citizens (see analysis in Chapter 2). This also suggests an area of focus for policy research in 2018.

Finally, as the next chapters will discuss in more detail, in terms of overall satisfaction with governance and public administration, women and ethnic minorities gave lower scores than ethnic majority Kinh and males in five out of six dimensions (with the exception of Public Service Delivery) in 2017. This is also a policy and practice matter for Viet Nam to address, especially as the country is implementing its national agenda towards more inclusive sustainable development by 2030.

15 See National Economics University and United Nations Development Programme (2017), and Nguyen Van Thang, Do Thanh Huyen et al. (2017) for suggestions on how to promote citizen participation through deliberative policymaking models.

IMPORTANT ISSUES IN VIET NAM IN 2017

Overview

To provide a barometer of citizen priorities, the PAPI survey asks citizens to state their issue of greatest concern. As this chapter explains, poverty remains by far the most important issue to Vietnamese citizens. However, since 2015 concern about the environment has also surged in importance. This chapter explores the relationship between these two concerns by assessing how citizens make trade-offs between protecting the environment, reducing poverty, and economic growth. The data show that all Vietnamese citizens, but particularly highly educated ones, are unwilling to sacrifice environmental protection for economic development. Furthermore, citizens express a willingness to pay more for actions that could benefit the environment.

Secondly, this chapter also examines the factors driving citizen concerns about poverty reduction. The persistent importance of poverty reduction is somewhat puzzling given Viet Nam’s rapid declines in poverty. As a 2012 World Bank report documents, the estimated number of Vietnamese unable to meet their “basic needs” plunged from about 58% in the 1990s to less than 10% in 2010.16 There are many potential theories for why citizens—even wealthy citizens—are so concerned about poverty reduction. One of the most prevalent is that while many Vietnamese are wealthier, their memory of poverty leads them to support policies that reduce poverty. PAPI results

CHAPTER02

16 See World Bank (2012), page 1

tell a different story. They suggest that concerns about Viet Nam’s national development rather than personal concerns drive citizens to support poverty reduction policies.

Finally, this chapter focuses on an additional issue relevant to governance in Viet Nam: the growth of e-governance and access to information. In recent years, the Vietnamese government has poured resources into streamlining and easing administrative procedures and communication between citizens and government officials by creating online government web portals. Additionally, the Viet Nam National Assembly passed the Law on Access to Information in 2016 which is supposed to allow Vietnamese citizens to acquire more government documents and information. The results from the 2017 PAPI survey suggest mixed results from these efforts. While satisfaction with e-governance among users is high, the overall rate of uptake is low. Furthermore, most Vietnamese citizens are not aware of the access to information law. This suggests that despite the promises of e-governance, more work remains to be done by governments at different levels, especially in diversifying communication channels to ensure that all citizens have access to the information they need.

Issues of Greatest Concern in 2017

To set the stage for the analyses that follow in this chapter, this section looks first at the issues of greatest concern for Vietnamese citizens. As Figure 2.1 shows, by far the issue of greatest concern since 2015 when

22 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

the question was introduced has been poverty. Overall, 28% of citizens cited it as a top concern, with economic growth and jobs coming second and third. The environment, which was the second most important issue in 2016, dropped to the fourth highest concern (mentioned as the top concern by

about 7% of the population). Figure 2.2 looks at the changes over the past three years. As the figures show, the biggest increase is in concern for poverty. Concern about the environment has also increased since 2015, although it has fallen somewhat since its peak in 2016.

28.47

7.78 7.35 7.35 7.06 6.58

3.19 2.97 2.68 2.46 2.14 2.03 1.99 1.94

0

10

20

30

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Poverty/H

unger

Econ Growth

/GDP

Jobs/E

mployment

Environment

Corruptio

nRoads

Other Socia

l Issu

e

Law and Ord

er

East Sea Disp

ute

Other Eco

n Issues

Agri Policy

Income

Nat'l Defense

Educatio

n

3.94

1.86 1.77

-1.44

-3.86

-5.17-5

0

5

10

Perc

enta

ge o

f Cha

nge

Poverty/H

unger

Roads

Corruptio

n

Income

East Sea D

ispute

Environment

2016 to 201710.43

5.20

1.02

-0.69

-2.40-2.87

-5

0

5

10

Poverty/H

unger

Environment

Corruptio

nRoads

East Sea D

ispute

Income

2015 to 2017

Figure 2.1: Most Important Issue Facing the Country from Citizens’ Perspective, 2017

Figure 2.2: Change in Issues of Greatest Concern, 2015-2017

IMPORTANT ISSUES IN VIET NAM IN 2017CHAPTER 2 23

Poverty as an Ongoing Major Concern

The focus on economic growth concerns in general, and poverty and hunger in particular, is somewhat puzzling. Why, if Viet Nam has reduced its poverty rate to less than 14%, does this issue remain such an

important concern? Furthermore, why, as Table 2.1 shows, are Vietnamese citizens with higher income levels concerned about poverty? As the table shows, it is not only citizens with lower incomes who are worried about poverty, but lower-middle, upper-middle, and higher-income citizens as well.

Table 2.1: Concern about Poverty by Income Level, 2017

Income Level* Mean Minimum Maximum

Low 29.37% 25.38% 33.36%

Low-middle 31.17% 27.24% 35.11%

Upper-middle 30.99% 27.63% 34.36%

High 25.23% 22.02% 28.43%

* Low: below VND 3 million per household per month; Low-middle: between VND 3 million and VND 5.5 million per month; Upper-middle: between VND 5.5 million and VND 9 million per month; High: above VND 9 million per month. Minimum and maximum percentages show the lower and the upper bound values of the standard errors.

This section probes some possible explanations for the persistence of poverty as a concern of Vietnamese citizens. This is an important question because policymakers might not understand why poverty reduction remains so important in the context of falling poverty levels. If the reason is that citizens are still worried about falling into poverty, then this suggests that a continued focus on economic security is important. Alternatively, it could be that citizens associate poverty with greater vulnerability to risks (such as natural disasters), or that poverty is linked to over-exploitation of natural resources and environmental degradation, negatively affecting Viet Nam’s overall development.

Findings presented in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.3 show that for citizens from lower-income households, as well as those from rich and poor households in lower-income provinces, personal concerns about poverty are real. At the same time, much of the concern about poverty results from an association with Viet Nam’s

overall level of development, and this concern is consistent among citizens from all income levels.

Table 2.2 shows the results of a question asking those who cited poverty as their most important concern why they thought poverty was important. The results clearly show that poor citizens are most concerned about either themselves or a family member falling back into poverty. While 58% of lower-income respondents cited personal concerns related to this issue, only 35% of higher-income respondents did. Similarly, lower-income respondents were also more likely to express concern about family members falling into poverty compared to those from higher-income households. However, and perhaps surprisingly, for respondents of all income levels, the most cited reason for their concern about poverty was its relationship to Viet Nam’s overall development; citizens want to see continued improvement in the country’s socio-economic status.

24 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Another potential factor driving concerns about poverty could be proximity to poverty. While a respondent may not be poor themselves, if they live in an area that is relatively less wealthy, this may increase their concerns about poverty. As Figure 2.3 shows, there is a clear relationship between provincial wealth and concern about poverty. What’s more, further statistical analysis shows that the relationship

Ha Noi

Ha Giang

Cao Bang

Bac Kan

Tuyen Quang

Lao Cai

Dien Bien

Lai Chau

Son La

Yen BaiHoa Binh

Thai Nguyen

Lang Son

Quang NinhBac Giang

Phu Tho

Vinh Phuc

Bac Ninh

Hai Duong

Hai Phong

Hung Yen

Thai Binh

Ha Nam

Nam Dinh

Ninh Binh

Thanh Hoa

Nghe An

Ha Tinh

Quang Binh

Quang Tri

TT-Hue

Da Nang

Quang Nam

Quang NgaiBinh Dinh

Phu Yen Khanh Hoa

Ninh Thuan

Binh Thuan

Kon TumGia Lai

Dak Lak

Dak Nong

Lam Dong

Binh Phuoc

Tay Ninh

Binh Duong

Dong Nai

HCMCLong An

Tien Giang

Ben Tre

Tra Vinh

Vinh Long

Dong Thap

An Giang Kien Giang

Can ThoHau Giang

Bac LieuCa Mau

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

Pove

rty

as T

op C

once

rn

20 40 60 80 100

GDP Per Capita (Million VND)

95% Con�dence Fitted Line Provinces

Figure 2.3: Concern for Poverty by Provincial GDP,* 2017

* GDP data as of 2016.

Table 2.2: Reasons for Concern about Poverty, 2017

Income Level* Personal Poverty Concern

Family Poverty Concern

Government Duty to Reduce Poverty

Implications for Viet Nam’s Development

Low 58.19% 61.98% 55.71% 82.15%

Low-middle 47.65% 54.07% 54.41% 88.63%

Upper-middle 47.51% 50.18% 55.24% 84.37%

High 35.21% 45.67% 62.10% 87.24%

* Low: below VND 3 million per household per month; Low-middle: between VND 3 million and VND 5.5 million; Upper-middle: between VND 5.5 million and VND 9 million; High: above VND 9 million. Results from question D611ai.

holds even when controlling for individual factors that vary between provinces, such as income level, education level, and minority status.17 This suggests that holding everything else equal, individuals with higher incomes living in poorer provinces are still more likely to be concerned about poverty than higher-income individuals living in richer provinces.

17 The results are from a multilevel linear regression with individual factors at the first level and provincial 2016 GDP at the second level.

IMPORTANT ISSUES IN VIET NAM IN 2017CHAPTER 2 25

As noted above, this raises the question of why richer respondents in poorer provinces are more likely to be concerned about poverty than richer respondents in wealthier provinces. But it also raises the question as to why poorer respondents in wealthier provinces are less likely to be concerned about poverty. Further analysis shows that what drives the difference in concern across provinces is the perceived vulnerability of citizens, or of their families, to falling into poverty. As Figure 2.4 shows, wealthier individuals living in poorer provinces are more concerned about family members falling into poverty than wealthier ones in richer provinces. Figure 2.4 also shows that lower-income individuals in poorer provinces are more

concerned about themselves falling into poverty than lower-income citizens in richer provinces.

These results suggest two major takeaways. First, respondents’ primary concern for poverty centers on Viet Nam’s overall level of development. Across Viet Nam, an overwhelming number of those concerned about poverty cite the fact that it both represents and is a cause of Viet Nam’s underdevelopment. Second, a large number of citizens are also concerned about themselves or family members slipping back into poverty. These concerns are most pronounced among lower-income respondents, particularly those in lower-income areas where there may be fewer economic opportunities.

* GDP data as of 2016.

Willingness to Pay for Poverty Reduction

The survey results presented in the preceding section suggest that poverty continued to be an important concern for Vietnamese citizens in 2017. This section addresses the issues of who is willing to pay to reduce poverty, how much they are willing to pay, and what factors would induce them to pay more. It does this by

Ha Noi

Ha Giang

Cao Bang

Bac Kan

Tuyen Quang

Lao Cai

Dien Bien

Lai Chau

Son La

Yen Bai

Hoa Binh

Thai Nguyen

Lang Son

Quang Ninh

Bac GiangPhu Tho

Vinh Phuc

Bac Ninh

Hai DuongHai Phong

Hung Yen

Thai Binh

Ha Nam

Nam Dinh

Ninh Binh

Thanh Hoa

Nghe An

Ha Tinh

Quang BinhQuang Tri

TT-Hue

Da Nang

Quang Nam

Quang Ngai

Binh Dinh

Phu Yen

Khanh Hoa

Ninh Thuan

Binh Thuan

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

Dak Lak

Dak Nong

Lam Dong

Binh Phuoc

Tay Ninh

Binh DuongDong Nai

HCMC

Long An

Tien Giang

Ben Tre

Tra Vinh

Vinh Long

Dong Thap

An Giang

Kien Giang

Can Tho

Hau Giang

Bac Lieu

Ca Mau

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Conc

ern

abou

t Fam

ily P

over

ty

20 40 60 80 100

GDP Per Capita (Million VND)

High Income

Ha Noi

Ha Giang

Cao BangBac Kan

Tuyen Quang

Lao Cai

Dien Bien

Lai Chau

Son La

Yen Bai

Hoa Binh

Thai NguyenLang Son

Quang Ninh

Bac Giang

Phu Tho

Vinh PhucBac Ninh

Hai DuongHai Phong

Hung Yen

Thai Binh

Ha Nam

Nam Dinh

Ninh Binh

Thanh HoaNghe AnHa Tinh

Quang Binh

Quang Tri

TT-Hue

Da Nang

Quang Nam

Quang Ngai

Binh Dinh

Phu Yen

Khanh HoaNinh Thuan

Binh Thuan

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

Dak LakDak Nong

Lam Dong

Binh Phuoc

Tay Ninh

Binh DuongDong Nai

HCMCLong An

Tien Giang

Ben Tre

Tra Vinh

Vinh Long

Dong Thap

An Giang

Kien Giang

Can Tho

Hau Giang

Bac Lieu

Ca Mau

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Conc

ern

abou

t Mys

elf P

over

ty

20 40 60 80 100

GDP Per Capita (Million VND)

Low Income

95% Con�dence Fitted Line Provinces

Figure 2.4: Reasons for Concern about Poverty by Provincial GDP* and Income Levels, 2017

analysing the answers to three questions. First, who pays income tax in Viet Nam, as this is an important way to equalize incomes. Second, would citizens be willing to sacrifice some of their own income to pay for poverty reduction, and if so, what would induce them to do so. And third, would citizens support redistribution of income from wealthier provinces to poorer provinces.

26 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Table 2.3: Percent of Respondents Paying Personal Income Tax, 2017

Household Income Level (Monthly)

Percentage of Respondents

Percentage of Respondents Paying

Income Taxes

Applicable 2017 Personal Income Tax Rates *

All Income Levels 100% 6.8% 5-35%

Up to VND 5 million 53.4% 4.6% 5%

VND 5 < x < 10 million 23.1% 8.2% 10%

Above VND 10 million 23.5% 10.3% 15-35%

* Latest taxable incomes and progressive personal income tax rates are available at https://thuvienphapluat.vn.19

Who Pays Income Taxes and at What Rate?

For the first time, the 2017 PAPI survey asked citizens whether they paid personal income tax. In terms of poverty reduction, this is an important issue because personal income tax policies are a key approach to redistributing wealth from richer households to poorer ones. Although value-added taxes can be structured to do this as well, in general they are more regressive than income taxes because poorer households use a higher proportion of income for consumption compared to higher-income earners, who may save or invest their money. As a result, a higher percentage of income earned by poor households will be paid in taxes through a VAT than through a personal income tax schedule with higher rates for higher-income earners. Revenue from personal income tax, then, is critical to government anti-poverty efforts.

Table 2.3 shows that few Vietnamese citizens pay income tax. Across the country, only 6.8% of

the respondents said they paid income taxes in 2017. Perhaps more importantly, there is the weak correlation between household income and taxes paid. While poorer citizens are less likely to pay taxes than wealthier citizens, still only 10.3% of individuals from households making more than VND 10 million per month paid taxes, compared to 4.6% of those from households making less than VND 5 million per month. Consistent with a 2011 World Bank report, this shows that few citizens pay personal income taxes, and it helps to explain why income taxes are a relatively smaller source of government revenue than VAT or corporate taxes.18

This brief analysis suggests one reason why income tax reform is such an important issue. Given the importance of poverty reduction to many Vietnamese citizens, taxation of income is an important tool that the government could use to generate revenue and redistribute wealth.

18 See World Bank (2011).

19 See information about applicable 2017 personal income tax rates at https://thuvienphapluat.vn/tintuc/vn/thoi-su-phap-luat/chinh-sach-moi/14941/bieu-thue-suat-thue-thu-nhap-ca-nhan-moi-nhat.

IMPORTANT ISSUES IN VIET NAM IN 2017CHAPTER 2 27

Who is Willing to Pay for Poverty Reduction and Why?

This section assesses whether citizens themselves are willing to financially support anti-poverty efforts by the government and what would induce them to sacrifice some of their income.20 Respondents were first primed by the mention of different issues including party slogans, concerns about slipping into poverty, Viet Nam’s underdeveloped education and health sectors, governance quality, and national pride. Additionally, they were asked if they would sacrifice (theoretically) between 1%, 3%, and 5% of total income for poverty reduction. Finally, they were asked whether they would pay more tax so that their respective provinces could transfer some provincial income to poorer provinces for poverty reduction. In addition, the analysis examined whether income, age, gender, party membership, or membership in a civil society organisation impacted citizens’ willingness to give. If these factors play a role in driving the willingness to provide assistance to the poor, then the related motivating factors should increase the propensity to pay for poverty reduction.

Figure 2.5 shows the results of respondents’ willingness to contribute to poverty reduction based on all of these factors. The first thing to note is that the baseline of willingness to give is quite high, at about 70%. The factors listed in Figure 2.5 should be added or subtracted from 70% to determine the relative effect that these factors have on the willingness to give. As is clear in the figure, demographic factors matter greatly. In particular, men, party members, and members of mass organisations are much more willing to give. Interestingly, older citizens are less willing to give, even after controlling for income levels. This suggests that those with the most experience with poverty in Viet Nam are the least willing to donate their own income to further reduce poverty. Perhaps not surprisingly, wealthier citizens are more willing to give than the poorest citizens.

In terms of the factors that induce citizens to contribute to poverty reduction, concerns about poverty’s impact on Viet Nam’s development and the risks of slipping back into poverty are consistent with the previous analysis: when respondents were told that some citizens are at risk of slipping into poverty

Party Slogan

Poverty Risk

Healthier Workers

Educated Workers

High Corruption

Government E�ectiveness

National Pride

Taxes

Charity

3% of Income

5% of Income

Age

Male

Party Member

Mass Org Member

Low-Mid Income

Mid-High Income

High Income

-.1 0 .1 .2 .3Note: Baseline willingness to give is 70.9%

Figure 2.5: Willingness to Pay Additional Income for Poverty Reduction, 2017

Note: The graph shows the impact that different factors have on willingness to pay additional income for poverty reduction. For instance, the ‘Poverty Risk’ factor indicates that telling respondents that some citizens may fall into poverty increases their willingness to give by about 10%. The ‘Party Member’ factor means party members are 20% more likely to give than non-party members. Alternatively, the ‘Party Slogan’ and ‘National Pride’ factors do not impact willingness to give significantly.

20 See Questions A011d2 and A011e in the 2017 PAPI Questionnaire.

28 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

or that poverty contributes to a sicker, less educated workforce, respondents were more likely to say they would give some of their income to alleviate poverty. Alternatively, priming statements related to national pride, party slogans, or Viet Nam’s governance quality did not have a substantial effect on citizens’ willingness to pay. Finally, the amount of income did have an impact; citizens were much less willing to pay 3% or 5% of their income for poverty reduction than they were to pay 1%.

In terms of willingness to personally pay for redistribution of income, another important component is transfers from wealthier provinces to poorer ones. As Malesky et al. (2011) show, Viet Nam is notable for the degree to which it redistributes provincial revenue in this way. The goal of the redistribution is to ensure Viet Nam’s economic growth is equitable. To assess whether citizens support this and to identify the drivers of such support, the same strategy described above was employed.

Figure 2.6 shows the results of this analysis. Again, the baseline is high, with overall support for redistribution at 75%. Additionally, consistent with the previous analysis, respondents who are wealthier, younger, party members, and/or members of mass organisations are more supportive of paying more

tax for redistribution. The same factors seem to drive increased support as well. Concerns about slipping back into poverty and about Viet Nam’s overall level of development increase support the most. However, in partial contrast to the previous analysis, national pride plays a larger role in this case; respondents reminded of Viet Nam’s 1968 war-time successes also show a somewhat greater support for paying more tax for provincial transfers.

Because wealthier provinces bear the largest burden from redistribution, Figure 2.7 assesses whether citizens in wealthier provinces support transfers. While there is a somewhat negative relationship, the relationship is weak. Ho Chi Minh City and Dong Nai are wealthy localities where citizens are the least likely to support transfers. However, even there, more than half of the respondents support transfers. Furthermore, there are a number of poorer provinces, such as Bac Lieu and Ninh Thuan, where citizens support transfers to a similar degree. Additionally, there are a number of wealthier provinces, such as Bac Ninh, Hanoi, and Binh Duong, where the proportions of citizens supporting transfers are relatively high. Therefore, unlike the willingness to give personally for poverty reduction, the willingness to pay more taxes for revenue transfers does not seem as dependent on level of provincial wealth.

Party Slogan

Poverty Risk

Healthier Workers

Educated Workers

High Corruption

Government E�ectiveness

National Pride

Age

Male

Party Member

Mass Org Member

Low-Mid Income

Mid-High Income

High Income

-.1 0 .1 .2

Note: Baseline support for redistribution is 75.1%

Figure 2.6: Support for Paying Tax for Transfers of Revenue to Other Provinces, 2017

Note: The graph shows the impact that the different factors have on willingness to pay more tax for income redistribution. For instance, the ‘Poverty Risk’ factor indicates that telling respondents that some citizens may fall into poverty increases their support for paying additional tax for redistribution by about 8%. The ‘Party Member’ factor means respondents who are party members are 11% more likely to support paying tax for redistribution than non-party members. Alternatively, the ‘Party Slogan’ factor does not impact respondents’ support significantly.

IMPORTANT ISSUES IN VIET NAM IN 2017CHAPTER 2 29

Trade-offs between Economic and Environmental Concerns The preceding sections demonstrate the centrality of economic concerns among Vietnamese citizens. This section explores the costs citizens are willing to accept to address these economic concerns. Some have suggested that economic concerns should trump environmental concerns, for example. In fact, some argue that environmental degradation is a necessary side effect of economic growth. To better understand the degree to which citizens are willing to accept environmental costs for economic growth, the 2016 and 2017 PAPI surveys asked whether citizens would be willing to support economic development at the expense of the environment. The number of citizens saying that they do not want growth at the expense of the environment was virtually unchanged from the 2016 to the 2017 survey: in both surveys, only 21-23% of respondents supported economic growth at the expense of the environment.

These findings, while instructive, are abstract. The 2017 survey asked respondents to make a clearer

trade-off. It asked whether citizens would be willing to turn down investment from a company that promises to bring jobs even if that company has a poor environmental track record. Similarly, with regards to power generation, it asked if Vietnamese citizens want to construct coal-fired power plants in order to increase the reliability of power generation even if this has consequences for greenhouse gas emissions and localized health effects. These questions are more realistic measures of how important environmental concerns are to Vietnamese citizens. The results below show that the vast majority are not willing to sacrifice the environment for economic benefits, even if the benefits are theoretically large.

Trade-offs between Jobs and Environmental Degradation

To address the question of trade-offs between jobs and environmental degradation, the 2017 PAPI survey asked citizens to choose between two hypothetical investment projects. Table 2.4 lists a series of attributes of a given project that varied each time the survey questionnaire was administered. Each attribute

Ha Noi

Ha Giang

Cao Bang

Bac Kan

Tuyen Quang

Lao CaiDien Bien

Lai Chau

Son LaYen Bai

Hoa Binh

Thai Nguyen

Lang Son

Quang Ninh

Bac Giang

Phu Tho

Vinh Phuc

Bac Ninh

Hai DuongHai Phong

Hung Yen

Thai Binh

Ha NamNam Dinh

Ninh Binh

Thanh HoaNghe An

Ha Tinh

Quang Binh

Quang Tri

TT-Hue

Da Nang

Quang Nam

Quang Ngai

Binh Dinh

Phu Yen

Khanh Hoa

Ninh Thuan

Binh Thuan

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

Dak LakDak Nong

Lam Dong

Binh Phuoc

Tay Ninh

Binh Duong

Dong Nai HCMC

Long An

Tien Giang

Ben Tre

Tra Vinh Vinh Long

Dong Thap

An GiangKien Giang

Can Tho

Hau Giang

Bac Lieu

Ca Mau

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

Supp

ort f

or P

rovi

ncia

l Tra

nsfe

rs

20 40 60 80 100

GDP Per Capita (Mil. VND)

95% Con�dence Fitted Line Provinces

Figure 2.7: Relationship between Provincial GDP* and Support for Revenue Transfers, 2017

* GDP data as of 2016.

30 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

was randomly assigned so that a project could be undertaken by a Viet Nam company or a foreign one; could be managed by a state-owned company or a private company; and could employ 100, 1,000, or 10,000 staff. The aim of the question is to assess what factors are most important in determining support for

an investment project. If employment is an important consideration, citizens may value the number of jobs created the most. However, if environmental concerns are paramount citizens may place greater importance on a company’s environmental history and certification.

Figure 2.8 shows the results of the analysis. A number of factors stand out. First, consistent with what one would predict, investment projects by larger firms won more support. Respondents were about 5% more likely to choose the project that created 1,000 or more jobs compared to the one that created 100 jobs. Interestingly, respondents were also most likely to support projects by Vietnamese firms as opposed to those by foreign firms from either developing or developed countries. Finally, it is also interesting to note that a higher proportion of respondents supported projects by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) compared to projects where the type of investors was not mentioned, or where the investment project was undertaken by a private company. This suggests that while SOEs may be

inefficient, citizens support SOE investments due to their potential to generate employment.

However, the most striking results of the survey experiment relate to the degree to which citizens are concerned about firms’ environmental performance. Firms cited for environmental violations were severely punished. Those with violations were more than 25% less likely to be chosen compared to those that had not been cited. This dwarfs the impact of the number of jobs a potential firm might bring, suggesting that environmental concerns play an important role. Furthermore, applications for a green certificate also drove support. Firms that had green certificates were favoured by nearly 20% over those that did not have green certificates.

Table 2.4: Random Attributes of Hypothetical Projects

Attribute Random Option 1 Random Option 2 Random Option 3

Country of origin Viet Nam A developed country A developing country

Ownership Private State-owned [blank]

Sector Food Processing Electronics Mining

Employment 100 1,000 10,000

Tax Not offered a tax reduction Offered a 5% tax reduction Offered a 10% tax reduction

Environmental history Never been cited for environmental violation

Previously cited for environmental violation causing damage to 100 households

Previously cited for environmental violation causing damage to 1,000 households

Green certification

The firm possesses a “green certificate” indicating it is NOW employing operations that minimize environmental damage

The firm does not possess a “green certificate” indicating it HAS NOT employed operations that minimize environmental damage

The firm is applying for a “green certificate” indicating it WILL employ operations that minimize environmental damage

Note: Question D308 in the 2017 PAPI Questionnaire.

IMPORTANT ISSUES IN VIET NAM IN 2017CHAPTER 2 31

Who is most sensitive to environmental concerns? This is an important question as Viet Nam becomes wealthier and more developed. Scholars of the “middle-income trap” note that as countries develop, the willingness of citizens to tolerate the side effects of unchecked economic development decreases.21 To assess this question, Table 2.5 shows, based on the PAPI results, how concern for the environment varies depending on a respondent’s educational background. While all respondents were less likely to choose projects implemented by companies with past experience of environmental damage, this effect was strongest among more highly educated respondents.

The factor of environmental damage reduced support for the project by about 17% for low-educated respondents compared to 22% for medium and highly educated respondents. This is in contrast to the effect of employment generation, for which there is no relationship between education and support, as shown in Table 2.6.

These results show that Vietnamese citizens welcome firms that can deliver economic benefits. However, when they are made aware of a firm’s poor environmental performance, they say they would not support its projects even if they can bring economic benefits. The tendency to support environmentally clean projects is most pronounced among more educated citizens.

Firm from Developed Country

Firm from Developing Country

Private Firm

State-owned Enterprise

Electronics

Mining

1,000 Employees

10,000 Employees

5% Tax Reduction Granted

10% Tax Reduction Granted

100 Households Badly A�ected

1,000 Households Badly A�ected

Green Certi�cate Obtained

Applying for Green Certi�cate

-.4 -.35 -.3 -.25 -.2 -.15 -.1 -.05 0 .05 .1 .15 .2

Figure 2.8: Impact of Investment Project Attributes on Project Choice, 2017

Note: The ‘100 Households Badly Affected’ and ‘1,000 Households Badly Affected’ factors show that environmentally destructive projects reduce citizens’ support by more than 25%. The ‘1,000 Employees’ and ‘10,000 Employees’ factors show that more employments boosts the support, but by a modest rate of 4-5%.

21 See Doner, R., & Schneider, B. (2016).

32 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Trade-offs between Coal-fired Power and Clean Air

In 2017, Vietnam Electricity (EVN) approved a project of cooperation with South Korea on a wave of new coal-fired power plants.22 The move to construct the power plants reflects concerns with Viet Nam’s energy grid infrastructure. While nearly all Vietnamese have access to electricity, about 28% of PAPI respondents said their power was cut several times a month. While this is an annoyance for citizens, it is also problematic for businesses as it can hinder production. Therefore, the increased power generating capacity clearly fills a need.

On the other hand, coal-fired power plants have a variety of impacts. First, they emit high levels of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Climate change is an important issue for Viet Nam, particularly in the Mekong Delta region where drought and rising salinity levels are already having a negative impact on rice production. Second,

emissions from coal-fired power plants are linked to health risks, potentially causing lung problems or cancer among individuals living in communities located close to the plants.

To assess how Vietnamese citizens view these trade-offs, citizens were asked whether they supported the construction of coal-fired power plants. Respondents were randomly informed about the project’s benefits for power generation as well as costs related to health and greenhouse gas emissions. By comparing the support for the plants based on the different information provided, it is possible to assess the importance of their economic and environmental concerns.

The results, as shown in Table 2.7, are striking. When respondents are simply asked whether or not they support the power plants, the results are split, with 49.2% supporting the construction of the plants when no additional information is provided.

Table 2.5: Impact of Environmental Damage on Project Choice by Education Level, 2017

Caused Environmental Damages

Did not cause environmental Damage Difference

Low Education 46% 76% 30%

High Education 33% 72% 39%

Note: The numbers are the percentages of respondents that would choose the project that had high levels of environmental damage versus no environmental damage, holding the other factors constant. Low education refers to education at primary school or below. High education refers to college education or more.

Table 2.6: Impact of High Employment on Project Choice by Education Level, 2017

Employment of 100 labours

Employment of 10,000 labours Difference

Low Education 53% 62% 9%

High Education 48% 54% 6%

Note: The numbers are the percentages of respondents that would choose the project that had 100 employees versus 10,000 employees, holding the other factors constant. Low education refers to education at primary school or below. High education refers to college education or more.

22 See Korea Times (9 November 2017).

IMPORTANT ISSUES IN VIET NAM IN 2017CHAPTER 2 33

Table 2.7: Determinants of Support for Coal-Fired Power Plants, 2017

Estimated Percentage of Supporters

Minimum Percentage of Supporters

Maximum Percentage of Supporters

Baseline (nothing mentioned) 49.20% 46.22% 52.19%

Sustained power access mentioned 57.96% 54.96% 60.95%

Increase in greenhouse gases mentioned 35.22% 32.22% 38.22%

Health damage mentioned 27.63% 24.49% 30.76%

All impacts mentioned 22.39% 19.47% 25.32%

Only negative impacts mentioned 13.64% 10.58% 16.70%

Note: Based on Question D607b in the 2017 PAPI Questionnaire. Minimum and maximum percentages represent lower and upper bounds of the standard errors.

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

None Primary Secondary High School College

Greenhouse Gases Not Mentioned Greenhouse Gases Mentioned

Figure 2.9: Impact of Mentioning Greenhouse Gases on Support for Plants by Education Level, 2017

However, that support is impacted dramatically by additional information. When citizens are told about the benefits of power generation, support for building the plants increases slightly, to 57.9%. However, when information about greenhouse gas emissions and health risks are added, the support plummets. When all three impacts—positive and negative—are mentioned, support drops to 22.4%. When only the negative effects are mentioned, it drops to 13.6%, a decrease that far exceeds the increase generated by highlighting the benefits. This suggests, again, that Vietnamese citizens are highly sensitive to the environmental and health costs of industrial development projects.

Additionally, and consistent with the findings from the determinants of support for investment projects, the demographic characteristics of respondents also played a role. As Figure 2.9 shows, the impact of highlighting greenhouse gas emissions had the strongest impact on educated respondents. For respondents with no formal education, the impact of mentioning greenhouse gases was relatively minimal, with support for the plants dropping by less than 10%. However, for the most educated respondents, the influence of mentioning the impact of greenhouse gases was substantial, with support declining from about 35% to less than 10%. This shows that environmental concerns are once again most pronounced for the most educated Vietnamese citizens.

34 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Table 2.8: Sources of Information on Government Documents, 2017

Where Access Information Percentage of Respondents

Search government online portals 22%

Send local government an email <1%

Send local government a letter 3%

Read official documents at a local library 5%

Read from a local official notice board 23%

Meet a local official I know personally 40%

Obtain information from personal contacts (family, friends) 33%

Post a question on social media 23%

Total respondents searching for information in 2017 12%

Access to Information and E-Governance

In addition to exploring concerns related to the environment and poverty, this chapter also looks at another pressing issue related to governance in Viet Nam: access to information and e-government services. In the past 10 years, Viet Nam has pushed heavily to improve responsiveness and transparency in public services by investing in online portals for administrative procedures. Additionally, the National Assembly passed a new law on access to information in 2016 that aimed to make the government more transparent. This section assesses how effective these measures have been from a citizen perspective.

Access to Information

In 2016 Viet Nam passed the Law on Access to Information. The new law codified Article 25 of the 2013 Constitution, which guarantees the right to information for Vietnamese citizens.23 The law, which comes into effect in July 2018, provides that Vietnamese citizens have the right to access nearly any government document, except in cases of national defence and national security. This should include documents such as land use plans, budgets, and other documents that could have direct impacts on the lives of citizens.

Of course, the law should be of greatest importance to citizens that need information. Results from the 2017 PAPI survey show that last year a substantial number of citizens did seek out government information, with 12% of respondents saying they looked for specific government documents. Results from a follow-up, open-ended question in the survey show that the largest number of responses pertained to citizens seeking information about land issues, social policy and health insurance.

For the group of citizens needing to access information, only one-third had heard of the Law on Access to Information according to the 2017 survey. This suggests that information about the law has not yet been communicated to those that need it most. Perhaps part of the reason is that citizens continue to rely on informal networks to obtain information. As Table 2.8 shows, by far the most prevalent sources of information on government documents were personal contacts in government agencies or other acquaintances. Relatively fewer individuals went through official channels, although a substantial number did avail themselves of government online portals.

23 See Ministry of Justice’s Central Database on Legal Normative Documents for the Law on Access to Information at http://vbpl.vn/TW/Pages/vbpqen-toanvan.aspx?ItemID=11040.

IMPORTANT ISSUES IN VIET NAM IN 2017CHAPTER 2 35

Access to E-government Services

Given the investments in e-governance, the survey included several additional questions on use and satisfaction with online portals for facilitating a range of administrative procedures. As Table 2.9 shows, uptake of the online portals is minimal. For all administrative procedures except construction

permits, citizens’ use of online portals in 2017 was less than 10%, while the rate for construction permits was only 16%. While those who did go online were generally able to access the documents they were looking for, the overall low level of uptake suggests that more work needs to be done to improve the effectiveness of these online portals.

Table 2.9: Usage of Online Portals for Accessing Administrative Documents, 2017

Public Administrative Procedures

Percentage of Users of the Procedures

Percentage of Users Visiting Online Portals

Found Information on Online Portals

Certification procedures 35% 8% 89%

Construction permits 14% 16% 97%

Land use rights certification 12% 8% 84%

Personal procedures 12% 6% 87%

Internet Access

Male

Kinh Ethnicity

Age

Urban

Primary Education

Secondary Education

High School

College

Low-Mid Income

High-Mid Income

High Income

-.05 0 .05 .1 .15 .2

Figure 2.10: Determinants of Access to Administrative Documents Online, 2017

36 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

One of the most important factors driving the success of online portals is, of course, access to the Internet. While Internet access has boomed in Viet Nam in recent years, it is still not universal. According to the 2017 PAPI survey results,24 55% of the population reported having access to the Internet either through their phones or via personal computers or laptops at home. Of these, 38% said they accessed the Internet through computers and 48% said they accessed the Internet through mobile devices. An estimated 30% have Internet access through both computers and mobile phones.

Because access to documents online should be easier when one has direct Internet access, the PAPI survey explored the impact of Internet access on usage of government online portals. The results are presented in Figure 2.10. Not surprisingly, Internet access is an important determinant of accessing government documents online. Those with Internet access (at home or on the phone) were 7% more likely than those who did not have Internet access to access online documents. Other factors were also important. Education plays a major role, with college-educated citizens more than 15% more likely to access documents online compared to those with less than a primary education. Urban residents were also more likely to use online procedures. Ethnicity and gender made little difference. This suggests that e-governance, while not yet widespread, could have a bright future as more citizens gain Internet access and education levels increase.

Implications

This chapter has looked deeply into three important issues in Viet Nam: poverty reduction, environmental concerns, and e-governance. The overarching takeaway is that Viet Nam’s increasing economic development is creating more complicated and demanding governance challenges and opportunities.

First, on the question of why Vietnamese citizens remain so concerned with poverty, the results paint a complex picture. Many Vietnamese citizens, particularly the poor or those living in poorer provinces, are worried about either themselves or family members falling into poverty. However, the most consistent concern is that

poverty is a drag on Viet Nam’s overall development. In particular, poverty deprives the country of a well-developed education system capable of training the next generation of workers.

Highlighting the concerns about falling into poverty and Viet Nam’s overall development also increases the willingness of citizens to sacrifice personal and provincial income for poverty reduction (via redistribution). In terms of policy implications, the analysis in this chapter suggests that poverty in Viet Nam is likely to remain an important concern. It also suggests that the government can increase revenue and potentially address poverty through greater transparency and effectiveness in personal income tax collection.

At the same time, the analysis of environmental concerns shows that Vietnamese citizens are not willing to support economic development at any cost. Vietnamese citizens, particularly educated ones, show remarkable concern for the environment, even when there are economic trade-offs. This suggests a difficult juggling act for the government: how can it continue to provide economic opportunities for all while remaining sensitive to the environmental externalities of economic development?

A potential way forward is through increased efficiency and reduced corruption in the public sector, such as through investment in e-governance. While the final section of this chapter shows that the usage of these government portals in Viet Nam has been minimal so far, further analysis suggests there are reasons to be optimistic. In particular, more educated citizens and those with Internet access are more likely to utilize these portals. As citizens increasingly gain in education and connectivity, uptake may eventually increase. The implication is that the government should not yet abandon efforts to promote e-governance tools. Instead, more work should be done to enhance the usefulness and user-friendliness of the online tools, including downloadable forms, and, more importantly, greater efforts should go into increasing access to detailed information about processes and procedures that citizens need.

24 Estimates are based on results from questions D611r and D611s on owned assets in the 2017 PAPI Questionnaire.

Cite

d Po

verty as a top concern

Economic Growth/GD

P

Jobs/Employment

Environment

PAPI Issues of Greatest Concern in 2017

POVERTY

28%

70.9%

7.78%

7.35%

7.35%

35-58%

82-89%

Willingnessto Pay for Poverty Reduction

22.39%

Support coal-�red power plantor clean air

Environment Employment

feared to fall back into poverty

poverty reduction is imperative to ensuring that Viet Nambecomes an advanced, developed country

ENVIRONMENT

Trade-o�s between Economic and Environment

$

Reasons for concern about poverty

#4 TOP CONCERN

© 2018 CECODES, Centre for Research and Training of the Viet Nam Fatherland Front , RTA, UNDP

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCE

Overview

This chapter portrays provincial performance in six dimensions (areas) of governance and public administration. It presents 2017 provincial performance by quartiles through a series of performance maps. It also shows how provinces have progressed over the course of the first two years—2016 and 2017—of the 2016-2021 government term. This is followed by a series of “dashboards” summarizing 2017 performance by sub-dimensions that allow provincial governments to see how they fare compared to their peers. Lastly, this chapter presents PAPI profiles of all 63 provinces, providing information to local governments about their strengths and weaknesses in governance and public administration during 2017 and over time at the sub-dimensional level.25

Overall in 2017, as this chapter reveals, none of the 63 provinces excelled in all six dimensions. Quang Binh, Ben Tre and Bac Lieu were in the best performing groups for five out of the six dimensions (see Table 3.7). Still, Bac Lieu remained in the low average performing group for the Vertical Accountability dimension. There also was a trend of converging provincial performance, as seen from the lowest

and highest aggregate provincial scores in 2017 compared to previous years. Still, the gap in 2017 between provinces receiving the highest and the lowest scores (33.09 points) remains significant. And there is a significant disparity between the highest provincial score (39.52 points) and the potential maximum score of 60 points (on the scale of 10-60 points for all six dimensions). These findings indicate that provincial governments need to do more to satisfy their citizens’ expectations.

Regional patterns have been consistent over time at the dimensional level. As Maps 3.1-3.6 on dimensional performance show, northern provinces tend to do better in the areas of Participation at the Local Levels and Transparency in Local Decision-making than their southern peers. On the contrary, more southern provinces are found in the better performing groups for Control of Corruption in the Public Sector, Public Administrative Procedures and Public Service Delivery. Even regional variation is evident in the dimension of Vertical Accountability.

A comparison of 2017 and 2012 results—the second years of successive five-year government terms (2011-2016, and 2016-2021)—for three dimensions that were unchanged over this period (Transparency in Local Decision-making, Control of Corruption in the Public Sector, and Public Service Delivery) shows that An Giang and Tra Vinh made significant progress in all three dimensions, with impressive increases of more than 10 percent. The results for all provinces are presented in Figures 3.2b, 3.4b and 3.6b.

CHAPTER03

25 A recap of findings over time for the dimensional, sub-dimensional and indicator levels is available at http://papi.org.vn/eng/documents-and-data-download. See also CECODES, VFF-CRT and UNDP (2017) for data and information about 2011-2016 provincial performance.

40 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Regarding year-on-year changes (2017 against 2016) at the provincial level (see Table 3, Figures 3.1a-3.6a and Figure 3.7), none of the scores for the country’s 63 provinces declined, while seven saw large improvements. Bac Lieu, Quang Ninh and Tra Vinh saw increases above 8%. Also, when comparing 2016 and 2017 aggregate scores in the best performing group, 11 provinces (Bac Ninh, Hai Duong, Thai Binh, Nam Dinh, Ninh Binh, Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri, Binh

Dinh, Ben Tre and Can Tho) were stable. Meanwhile, Bac Giang, Phu Tho, Da Nang and Dong Thap fell back into the high average group, and Hung Yen dropped into the low average group. Ha Nam, Ba Ria-Vung Tau, Long An, Vinh Long and Bac Lieu saw their scores rise, with Bac Lieu making the most impressive move up. Table 3a highlights key trends in local government performance for the first two years of the 2016-2021 government term at the indicator level.

Table 3: Summary of Year-on-year Provincial Progress and Setbacks (2017 against 2016)

Dimensions Progress (≥+5% increase in point estimates)

Setbacks(≤-5% decrease in point estimates)

1. Participation at Local Levels

• 13 provinces had significant improvements

• Quang Ninh, Bac Lieu, Tra Vinh and An Giang saw larger increases (above 15%)

• 14 provinces had significant declines

• Hau Giang, Dien Bien and Dak Lak saw larger declines (greater than -10%)

2. Transparency in Local Decision-making

• 15 provinces had significant improvements

• Bac Lieu, Quang Ninh and Ba Ria-Vung Tau saw larger increases (above 15%)

• 11 provinces had significant declines

• Quang Ngai and Tien Giang saw larger declines (greater than -10%)

3. Vertical Accountability

• 27 provinces had significant improvements

• Thai Binh, Vinh Long, Dong Nai, Cao Bang, Thanh Hoa, Hau Giang and Bac Giang saw larger increases (above 15%)

• 18 provinces had significant declines

• Da Nang and Dak Nong saw larger declines (greater than -15%)

4. Control of Corruption in the Public Sector

• 33 provinces had significant improvements

• Quang Ninh, Bac Lieu, Ba Ria-Vung Tau, Lao Cai and An Giang saw larger increases (above 20%)

• 6 provinces had significant declines

• Dak Nong, Hung Yen and Hai Phong saw larger declines (greater than -9%)

5. Public Administrative Procedures

• 8 provinces had significant improvement

• Bac Lieu and Binh Phuoc saw larger increases (above 7%)

• 3 provinces had significant declines

• Can Tho, Bac Kan and Ha Tinh saw significant declines (greater than -5%)

6. Public Service Delivery

• 8 provinces had significant improvements

• Vinh Long and Quang Tri saw larger increases (above 7%)

• 2 provinces had significant declines

• Binh Duong and Da Nang saw significant declines (greater than -5%)

Aggregated PAPI (unweighted)

• 7 provinces had significant improvements

• Bac Lieu, Quang Ninh and Tra Vinh saw larger increases (above 8%)

• None of 63 provinces had significant declines

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 41

Table 3a: Trends in Local Government Performance in First Two Years (2016-2017) of the 2016-2021 Government Term at the Indicator Level

Dimensions Progress (≥+5% increase in point estimates)

Setbacks(≤-5% decrease in point estimates)

Dimension 1: Participation at Local Levels

• Slight increase in the proportion of citizens reporting having a second candidate to choose from in village head elections (from 42% in 2016 to 49% in 2017)

• Slight increase in the proportion of citizens having voluntarily (rather than by force) contributed to local projects (from 37% in 2016 to 43% in 2017)

• Significant increase in the proportion of citizens reporting local projects being monitored by Community Investment Supervision Boards (from 21% in 2016 to 34% in 2017)

• Less civic knowledge of whether selected government posts are elected or appointed (decrease from 0.88 points in 2016 to 0.81 points in 2017)

• Lower rate of citizens reporting having their voluntary contributions recorded in local records (decrease from 73% in 2016 to 72% in 2017)

• Fewer contributors to local projects having opportunities to provide their comments in local project designs (decrease from 36% in 2016 to 33% in 2017)

Dimension 2: Transparency in Local Decision-making

• Slight decrease in proportion of citizens finding errors in poverty lists (from 39% in 2016 reporting that poor households were missed in poverty lists to 36% in 2017)

• Slight increase in the proportion of citizens confirming that commune budgets and expenditures were made publicly available (from 32% in 2016 to 36% in 2017)

• Slight increase in the proportion of citizens aware of local land plans (from 13.6% in 2016 to 15.2% in 2017)

• Little improvement in trust in accuracy of disclosed budgetary information (about 70% believed the information was accurate in both 2016 and 2017, lower than in previous years)

• Low proportions of citizens having opportunities to comment on land use plans (around 4% in both 2016 and 2017, lower than in previous years)

• Renewed land use plans still exerting negative impact on affected populations (with mean scores of approximately 2 points over time)

Dimension 3: Vertical Accountability

• Slight increase in proportion of citizens interacting with local authorities when facing problems (e.g., 25% met with village heads in 2017, up from 22% in 2016; 17% met with commune government officials in 2017, up from 14% in 2016)

• Significant increase in the proportion of citizens submitting complaints satisfied with results of complaint resolution (from 45% in 2016 to 53% in 2017)

• Slight increase in proportion of citizens with a People’s Inspection Board in the village (from 34% in 2016 to 39% in 2017) and in proportion saying the Boards are effective (from 77% in 2016 to 81% in 2017)

• Slight decrease in proportion of citizens who interacted with local authorities and found the interactions successful (e.g., 83% of those who met with village heads were satisfied in 2017, down from 85% in 2016; 81% of those who met with commune government officials were satisfied in 2017, down from 83% in 2016)

• Much lower level of satisfaction (among citizens making denunciation) with denunciation resolution by local authorities (decrease from 68% in 2016 to 33% in 2017)

• Low level of satisfaction with local governments addressing of joint petitions (41% in both 2016 and 2017)

42 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Dimensions Progress (≥+5% increase in point estimates)

Setbacks(≤-5% decrease in point estimates)

Dimension 4: Control of Corruption in the Public Sector

• Significant increase in the proportion of citizens agreeing that local officials do not divert public funds for personal use (from 54% in 2016 to 64% in 2017)

• Significant increase in the proportion of citizens agreeing that no bribes are requested for land use rights certificates (from 46% in 2016 to 55% in 2017)

• Slight increase in proportion of citizens agreeing that no bribes are requested at district hospitals and primary schools (from 51% and 55% in 2016, respectively, to 57% and 61% in 2017)

• Slight increase in the proportion of citizens agreeing that no bribes are requested for state employment (from 37% in 2016 to 43% in 2017)

• Significant decrease in the proportion of citizens knowing about the Anti-corruption Law (from 45% in 2016 to 40% in 2017)

• Incremental increase in tolerance of bribes (the mean bribe amount that would drive citizens to report it increased from 25.5 million VND in 2016 to 27.5 million VND in 2017)

• Extremely low proportion of victims of corruption denunciating bribe requests by public officials (the rate of about 3% in both 2016 and 2017 is much lower than the 9% rate in 2011 and 7% rate in 2012)

• Low proportion of citizens agreeing that local governments are serious about combating corruption (35% in 2017)

Dimension 5: Public Administrative Procedures

• Significant increase in total reported quality of services for construction permits (from 3.55 points in 2016 to 3.78 points in 2017 on a scale of 0-4 points)

• Slight increase in total quality of administrative services at the commune level (from 3.34 points in 2016 to 3.44 points in 2017)

• Significant increase in applicants accessing one-stop window for land use rights certificates (from 79% in 2016 to 86% in 2017)

• Slight decrease in total quality of administrative services for land use rights certificates (from 2.64 points in 2016 to 2.55 points in 2017 on a scale of 0-4 points)

• Overall user satisfaction with administrative services for land use rights certificates below 4 points on the 0-5 point scale, lower than the level for construction permits and personal procedures

Dimension 6: Public Service Delivery

• Slight increase in health insurance coverage (from 72% in 2016 to 79% in 2017)

• Slight increase in total quality of public primary schools (from 4.99 points in 2016 to 5.26 points in 2017 on a scale of 0-9 points)

• Slight increase in the proportion of citizens with access to piped water (from 49% in 2016 to 55% in 2017)

• Slight decrease in total quality of public district hospitals (from 5.22 points in 2016 to 5.12 points in 2017 on a scale of 0-10)

• Little improvement in law and order, with a slight increase in the proportion of citizens reporting they have been victims of crimes (from 14.6% in 2016 to 15.4% in 2017)

• Little improvement in basic infrastructure (roads, electricity, waste collection)

Note: Tables showing concrete findings for all PAPI indicators in 2017 and over time are available at http://papi.org.vn/eng/documents-and-data-download.

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 43

2017 Provincial Performance by the Six PAPI Dimensions

Dimension 1: Participation at Local Levels

Participation in political, social, and economic life is the constitutional right of all Vietnamese citizens from the age of 18. Such participation is important for citizens to exercise their democratic rights and to do their part to help improve local governance. The PAPI dimension Participation at Local Levels measures how citizens are aware of and practice their right to

political participation and how local governments facilitate the exercise of citizens’ right to participate in elections and local decision-making.

Below are snapshots of key findings related to provincial performance in engaging citizens at local levels. Map 3.1 presents aggregate dimensional scores of the country’s 63 provinces by four quartiles of best, high average, low average, and poor performers. Table 3.1 shows sub-dimensional scores by province for 2017, while Figure 3.1 shows changes over the two years of 2016 and 2017.

Map 3.1: Provincial Performance in Citizen Participation at Local Levels by Quartiles, 2017

Citizen Participation at Local Levels

Best Performers

High Average

Low Average

Poor Performers

44 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Table 3.1: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Participation at the Local Level by Sub-dimension, 2017

Province 1: Participation at Local Level

1.1: Civic Knowledge

1.2: Opportunities for Participation

1.3: Quality of Elections

1.4: Voluntary Contributions

Ha Noi 5.25 1.04 1.68 1.58 0.95Ha Giang 5.02 0.82 1.61 1.53 1.06Cao Bang 5.19 0.94 1.85 1.50 0.90Bac Kan 5.39 1.02 1.74 1.71 0.93Tuyen Quang 5.69 1.08 1.79 1.65 1.17Lao Cai 5.21 0.91 1.77 1.46 1.06Dien Bien 4.99 0.95 1.91 1.52 0.61Lai Chau 4.86 0.83 1.65 1.47 0.91Son La 5.35 1.00 1.74 1.79 0.82Yen Bai 5.02 1.06 1.64 1.46 0.86Hoa Binh 5.80 1.01 1.85 1.77 1.17Thai Nguyen 6.09 1.14 1.92 1.84 1.19Lang Son 5.24 0.86 1.70 1.52 1.16Quang Ninh 5.91 1.15 1.88 1.76 1.13Bac Giang 6.04 1.13 1.59 1.85 1.46Phu Tho 5.36 1.09 1.77 1.63 0.87Vinh Phuc 5.28 1.05 1.68 1.62 0.93Bac Ninh 6.39 1.43 2.03 1.68 1.25Hai Duong 6.28 1.08 1.73 1.68 1.80Hai Phong 5.22 0.97 1.77 1.64 0.84Hung Yen 5.86 1.06 1.76 1.79 1.25Thai Binh 6.12 1.17 1.84 1.74 1.37Ha Nam 5.96 1.12 1.91 1.68 1.25Nam Dinh 5.81 1.06 1.83 1.69 1.23Ninh Binh 5.69 0.97 1.69 1.73 1.29Thanh Hoa 5.30 0.97 1.73 1.64 0.96Nghe An 5.63 1.00 1.85 1.85 0.94Ha Tinh 6.41 1.47 1.94 1.75 1.25Quang Binh 5.81 1.11 1.79 1.79 1.12Quang Tri 5.61 1.17 1.77 1.70 0.97Thua Thien-Hue 5.18 1.00 1.73 1.62 0.82Da Nang 5.16 1.06 1.83 1.62 0.66Quang Nam 5.97 1.19 1.88 1.76 1.14Quang Ngai 4.94 1.01 1.59 1.38 0.96Binh Dinh 5.51 0.97 1.66 1.60 1.28Phu Yen 5.09 0.98 1.63 1.54 0.94Khanh Hoa 5.21 0.91 1.68 1.55 1.07Ninh Thuan 5.08 0.97 1.83 1.40 0.88Binh Thuan 4.86 0.89 1.71 1.29 0.97Kon Tum 5.19 1.01 1.79 1.53 0.85Gia Lai 5.29 0.96 1.71 1.56 1.05Dak Lak 5.21 0.96 1.71 1.52 1.02Dak Nong 5.25 1.00 1.72 1.69 0.84Lam Dong 5.58 1.11 1.89 1.43 1.15Binh Phuoc 5.27 0.99 1.81 1.61 0.86Tay Ninh 4.92 0.76 1.76 1.36 1.04Binh Duong 4.33 0.70 1.63 1.27 0.73Dong Nai 5.29 0.90 1.70 1.55 1.15Ba Ria-Vung Tau 5.59 1.05 1.87 1.56 1.11Ho Chi Minh City 4.70 0.96 1.71 1.26 0.77Long An 5.42 1.06 1.95 1.31 1.10Tien Giang 4.83 0.80 1.49 1.50 1.04Ben Tre 5.60 0.79 1.81 1.64 1.36Tra Vinh 5.27 0.87 1.69 1.49 1.22Vinh Long 4.91 0.77 1.64 1.53 0.98Dong Thap 5.19 1.07 1.59 1.40 1.13An Giang 5.24 0.98 1.61 1.48 1.17Kien Giang 5.19 1.00 1.84 1.50 0.86Can Tho 5.56 1.02 1.77 1.60 1.17Hau Giang 4.55 0.83 1.53 1.37 0.82Soc Trang 4.80 0.76 1.64 1.33 1.08Bac Lieu 5.79 0.92 1.65 1.58 1.65Ca Mau 4.65 0.81 1.43 1.55 0.86

Note: Figures are mean scores based on a scale of 1-10 points for the dimensional level (the first column), and a scale of 0.25-2.5 points for the sub-dimensional levels (the other four columns). Blue colour is for best performers (16 provinces); green colour for high average performers (16 provinces); orange colour for low average performers (15 provinces); and light yellow for poor performers (16 provinces). The provincial order is by provincial codes.

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 45

Figure 3.1: Year-on-year Change in Participation at the Local Levels, 2016–2017

Note: Y = percentage change in 2017 data from 2016 data, with a change of ±5% defined as statistically significant.

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Hau GiangDien Bien

Dak LakLao CaiYen Bai

Quang NgaiNinh Thuan

Vinh PhucTay Ninh

Quang TriHa Tinh

Ha GiangQuang Binh

Bac GiangBac Ninh

Soc TrangTien Giang

Lai ChauPhu ThoNghe AnCan Tho

Vinh LongDak Nong

Gia LaiBinh ThuanThanh Hoa

Binh DuongLong An

Hung YenNinh Binh

Son LaDa Nang

Thai BinhDong Thap

Ha NoiBinh Dinh

Thai NguyenBinh Phuoc

Nam DinhCao Bang

Ho Chi Minh CityKon Tum

Ca MauBac Kan

Quang NamThua Thien-Hue

Hoa BinhTuyen Quang

Lang SonLam DongDong Nai

Hai DuongHai Phong

Ha NamKhanh Hoa

Ben TrePhu Yen

Kien GiangBa Ria-Vung Tau

An GiangTra VinhBac Lieu

Quang Ninh

Y<-5

5<=Y=>5

Y>5

46 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Dimension 2: Transparency of Local Decision-making

PAPI measures how local governments facilitate and respond to civic rights, in order to better understand how public policies affect citizens’ lives and livelihoods. Transparency of local decision-making in the three sub-dimensional areas of ‘poverty lists’ (listings of poor households), ‘commune budget and expenditure lists,’ and ‘local land use planning and pricing’ is the focus of the second dimension of PAPI. Information relating to these three sub-dimensions is required to be transparent and made publicly available so that citizens across the country can exercise their legitimate rights to know, to discuss, to do, and to verify, as stipulated by the 2007 Grassroots

Democracy Ordinance and recent legislation like the 2013 Land Law, the 2015 State Budget Law and the 2016 Law on Access to Information.

Below are snapshots of key findings about provincial performance related to transparency in local decision-making for all citizens. Map 3.2 presents aggregate dimensional scores for 63 provinces by the four quartiles. Table 3.2 shows sub-dimensional scores by province, while Figure 3.2a shows changes over the two years of 2016 and 2017. Since the indicators in Dimension 2 have changed little since 2011, Figure 3.2b compares the performance of local governments in 2012 and 2017, both the second year in consecutive government terms.

Map 3.2: Provincial Performance in Transparency of Local Decision-making by Quartiles, 2017

Transparency

Best Performers

High Average

Low Average

Poor Performers

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 47

Table 3.2: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Transparency of Local Decision-making by Sub-dimension, 2017

Province 2: Transparency in Decision-making

2.1: Transparency in Poverty Lists

2.2: Transparency in Communal Budgets

2.3: Transparency in Land-Use Plans/Pricing

Ha Noi 5.27 1.88 1.68 1.70Ha Giang 5.57 2.13 1.74 1.70Cao Bang 5.78 2.34 1.84 1.60Bac Kan 5.30 2.08 1.55 1.66Tuyen Quang 6.13 2.51 1.80 1.82Lao Cai 5.88 2.34 1.82 1.72Dien Bien 5.63 2.37 1.72 1.53Lai Chau 5.14 2.01 1.49 1.64Son La 5.46 2.04 1.82 1.59Yen Bai 5.20 2.14 1.58 1.48Hoa Binh 5.82 2.39 1.76 1.67Thai Nguyen 6.20 2.50 1.86 1.85Lang Son 5.28 2.03 1.62 1.63Quang Ninh 5.85 2.12 1.96 1.78Bac Giang 5.81 2.19 1.77 1.86Phu Tho 6.19 2.48 1.83 1.87Vinh Phuc 5.32 2.02 1.64 1.65Bac Ninh 6.29 2.56 1.86 1.88Hai Duong 6.42 2.61 1.91 1.90Hai Phong 6.11 2.28 1.98 1.86Hung Yen 5.37 2.10 1.59 1.67Thai Binh 5.92 2.01 1.84 2.07Ha Nam 5.65 2.18 1.84 1.63Nam Dinh 6.08 2.21 1.96 1.91Ninh Binh 6.23 2.37 1.94 1.93Thanh Hoa 5.85 2.33 1.70 1.81Nghe An 5.51 2.17 1.70 1.64Ha Tinh 6.36 2.54 1.87 1.95Quang Binh 6.47 2.48 1.95 2.05Quang Tri 5.92 2.12 1.82 1.98Thua Thien-Hue 5.50 2.22 1.50 1.78Da Nang 5.51 2.26 1.68 1.57Quang Nam 5.46 2.01 1.71 1.74Quang Ngai 5.26 1.86 1.65 1.76Binh Dinh 5.72 2.44 1.63 1.65Phu Yen 5.52 2.01 1.62 1.89Khanh Hoa 5.42 2.10 1.57 1.75Ninh Thuan 5.49 2.13 1.67 1.69Binh Thuan 5.12 2.00 1.56 1.56Kon Tum 5.09 1.76 1.73 1.60Gia Lai 5.47 2.08 1.53 1.86Dak Lak 5.17 1.90 1.53 1.74Dak Nong 5.61 2.21 1.76 1.64Lam Dong 5.33 2.01 1.67 1.65Binh Phuoc 5.93 2.34 1.92 1.68Tay Ninh 5.59 2.07 1.61 1.90Binh Duong 5.54 2.09 1.71 1.74Dong Nai 5.69 2.12 1.66 1.91Ba Ria-Vung Tau 6.34 2.69 1.75 1.90Ho Chi Minh City 5.93 2.24 1.95 1.74Long An 6.18 2.44 1.88 1.86Tien Giang 5.21 2.08 1.40 1.74Ben Tre 5.99 2.26 2.01 1.73Tra Vinh 5.21 1.87 1.55 1.79Vinh Long 5.42 1.92 1.70 1.80Dong Thap 5.80 2.10 1.89 1.81An Giang 5.89 2.44 1.70 1.75Kien Giang 5.26 2.15 1.57 1.54Can Tho 6.12 2.48 1.87 1.77Hau Giang 5.45 2.21 1.47 1.78Soc Trang 4.99 1.75 1.44 1.79Bac Lieu 6.33 2.32 2.00 2.01Ca Mau 5.32 2.11 1.53 1.68

Note: Figures are mean scores on a scale of 1-10 points for the dimensional level (the first left column), and a scale of 0.33-3.33 points for the sub-dimensional levels (the other three columns). Blue colour is for best performers (16 provinces); green colour for high average performers (16 provinces); orange colour for low average performers (15 provinces); and light yellow for poor performers (16 provinces). The provincial order is by provincial codes.

48 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Figure 3.2a: Year-on-year Change in Transparency in Local Decision-making, 2016–2017

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Quang NgaiTien GiangHung Yen

Da NangBac GiangDien BienBinh Dinh

Dak LakThai Binh

Ninh ThuanVinh Phuc

Phu ThoLai Chau

Nam DinhBac Ninh

Thanh HoaBac Kan

Quang TriHoa Binh

Vinh LongNinh Binh

Phu YenKon Tum

Son LaThai Nguyen

Tay NinhLao Cai

Binh PhuocDak NongLam Dong

Quang NamBinh Thuan

Yen BaiDong NaiLang Son

Ha NamCan Tho

Ho Chi Minh CityNghe An

Quang BinhSoc Trang

Ha TinhDong Thap

Ha NoiBen Tre

Kien GiangHai Duong

Binh DuongCao BangAn GiangLong An

Ha GiangThua Thien-Hue

Gia LaiTra Vinh

Tuyen QuangKhanh HoaHau Giang

Ca MauHai Phong

Ba Ria-Vung TauQuang Ninh

Bac Lieu

Y<-5

5<=Y=>5

Y>5

Note: Y = percentage change in 2017 data from 2016 data, with a change of ±5% defined as statistically significant.

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 49

Figure 3.2b: Five-year Change in Transparency in Local Decision-making, 2012 against 2017

Note: Y = percentage change in 2017 data from 2012 data, with a change of ±5% defined as statistically significant.

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Ha NoiHa Nam

Quang TriLang SonThai Binh

Quang NgaiGia Lai

Kon TumBinh Duong

Nghe AnDa Nang

Binh PhuocPhu Yen

Nam DinhYen Bai

Bac KanCao Bang

Son LaHung YenVinh Phuc

Quang BinhBinh Dinh

Quang NamTien GiangVinh Long

Ba Ria-Vung TauLam DongSoc Trang

Thanh HoaDien Bien

Long AnLai Chau

Thua Thien-HueHau Giang

Ha GiangDak Nong

Quang NinhLao Cai

Hai PhongHoa BinhPhu Tho

Ho Chi Minh CityThai Nguyen

Ha TinhBen Tre

Ninh ThuanDak LakCa Mau

Bac GiangTay Ninh

Tuyen QuangKhanh HoaDong ThapKien GiangNinh Binh

Binh ThuanCan Tho

Dong NaiTra Vinh

Hai DuongAn GiangBac NinhBac Lieu

Y<-5

5<=Y=>5

Y>5

50 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Dimension 3: Vertical Accountability

Since 2016, this dimension has been constructed based on three revised and new sub-dimensions: (i) the frequency and effectiveness of citizen interactions with local authorities, (ii) the proactiveness of local governments in response to citizen proposals or complaints, and (iii) the coverage and effectiveness of People’s Inspection Boards (PIBs). The new indicators about how local governments respond to citizen proposals, denunciations, complaints, and/or petitions help to measure how the 2011 Law on Denunciations,

the 2011 Law on Complaints, and the 2014 Law on Citizen Reception are implemented in practice.

Below are snapshots of key findings about provincial performance in ensuring vertical accountability to citizens. Map 3.3 presents aggregate dimensional scores of the 63 provinces by four quartiles. Table 3.3 shows sub-dimensional scores by province, while Figure 3.3 shows changes over the two years of 2016 and 2017.

Vetical Accountability

Best Performers

High Average

Low Average

Poor Performers

Map 3.3: Provincial Performance in Vertical Accountability by Quartiles, 2017

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 51

Table 3.3: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Vertical Accountability by Sub-dimension, 2017

Province 3: Vertical Accountability 3.1: Interactions with Local Authorities

3.2: Responding to Citizen Actions

3.3: People's Inspection Boards

Ha Noi 4.61 2.15 1.17 1.29Ha Giang 4.60 1.92 1.45 1.23Cao Bang 5.43 2.20 2.02 1.21Bac Kan 4.32 1.91 1.30 1.11Tuyen Quang 5.39 2.34 1.65 1.40Lao Cai 5.56 2.34 2.00 1.21Dien Bien 5.06 2.24 1.66 1.17Lai Chau 4.10 1.74 1.16 1.20Son La 5.14 1.96 1.77 1.42Yen Bai 4.55 2.30 1.01 1.23Hoa Binh 5.30 2.23 1.66 1.41Thai Nguyen 5.33 2.15 1.80 1.37Lang Son 4.76 2.09 1.63 1.04Quang Ninh 4.82 2.09 1.21 1.52Bac Giang 4.95 2.05 1.57 1.33Phu Tho 4.97 2.35 1.18 1.44Vinh Phuc 4.79 2.04 1.46 1.28Bac Ninh 5.09 2.12 1.30 1.66Hai Duong 4.94 2.32 0.99 1.63Hai Phong 5.14 2.35 1.72 1.07Hung Yen 5.09 1.97 1.86 1.26Thai Binh 5.74 2.35 1.85 1.54Ha Nam 6.08 2.30 2.33 1.46Nam Dinh 6.25 2.23 2.33 1.69Ninh Binh 5.19 2.16 1.56 1.46Thanh Hoa 5.25 2.22 1.71 1.32Nghe An 5.02 2.21 1.47 1.34Ha Tinh 4.65 1.79 1.21 1.65Quang Binh 5.42 2.24 1.45 1.72Quang Tri 5.51 2.34 1.88 1.30Thua Thien-Hue 4.74 2.23 1.32 1.19Da Nang 4.71 2.39 1.12 1.21Quang Nam 4.98 2.19 1.59 1.20Quang Ngai 5.45 2.40 1.75 1.31Binh Dinh 5.36 2.26 1.61 1.49Phu Yen 5.30 2.09 1.88 1.33Khanh Hoa 4.84 2.34 1.12 1.38Ninh Thuan 5.14 2.09 1.81 1.25Binh Thuan 4.56 2.13 1.12 1.32Kon Tum 5.40 2.25 2.00 1.15Gia Lai 4.28 2.09 0.95 1.24Dak Lak 4.82 2.08 1.49 1.25Dak Nong 4.40 2.15 1.13 1.12Lam Dong 4.51 2.16 1.12 1.24Binh Phuoc 5.43 2.49 1.43 1.52Tay Ninh 5.40 2.17 1.97 1.26Binh Duong 5.05 2.14 1.66 1.25Dong Nai 5.21 2.26 1.72 1.23Ba Ria-Vung Tau 5.18 2.36 1.53 1.28Ho Chi Minh City 5.15 2.19 1.87 1.09Long An 4.93 2.27 1.36 1.30Tien Giang 4.72 2.33 1.20 1.18Ben Tre 5.39 2.51 1.47 1.41Tra Vinh 4.43 2.26 0.95 1.21Vinh Long 5.56 2.29 1.98 1.29Dong Thap 5.34 2.39 1.66 1.30An Giang 4.56 2.27 1.05 1.24Kien Giang 4.46 2.27 1.11 1.08Can Tho 5.04 2.32 1.50 1.22Hau Giang 5.43 2.50 1.60 1.34Soc Trang 4.66 2.17 1.22 1.27Bac Lieu 4.92 2.51 1.17 1.23Ca Mau 5.17 2.19 1.76 1.22

Note: Figures are mean scores based on a scale of 1-10 points for the dimensional level (the first left column), and a scale of 0.33-3.33 points for sub-dimensional levels (the other three columns). Blue colour is for best performers (16 provinces); green colour for high average performers (16 provinces); orange colour for low average performers (15 provinces); and light yellow for poor performers (16 provinces). The provincial order is by provincial codes.

52 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Figure 3.3: Year-on-year Change in Vertical Accountability, 2016–2017

Note: Y = percentage change in 2017 data from 2016 data, with a change of ±5% defined as statistically significant.

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Da NangDak Nong

Bac KanHai DuongLam Dong

Binh ThuanGia Lai

Can ThoPhu Tho

Soc TrangAn Giang

Thua Thien-HueQuang Ngai

Ba Ria-Vung TauYen Bai

Lai ChauHa TinhBen Tre

Tien GiangHung YenHai Phong

Quang NamDong Thap

Quang NinhDak Lak

Kon TumTra Vinh

Quang TriNghe An

Lang SonCa Mau

Tay NinhThai Nguyen

Ha GiangHoa Binh

Ho Chi Minh CityNam DinhDien BienNinh Binh

Ha NamTuyen Quang

Bac LieuKien Giang

Ha NoiBinh Dinh

Long AnKhanh Hoa

Ninh ThuanBac Ninh

Quang BinhBinh Phuoc

Binh DuongSon La

Lao CaiPhu Yen

Vinh PhucBac GiangHau GiangThanh Hoa

Cao BangDong Nai

Vinh LongThai Binh

Y<-5

5<=Y=>5

Y>5

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 53

Dimension 4: Control of Corruption in the Public Sector

The Control of Corruption in the Public Sector dimension is comprised of four sub-dimensions: (i) limits on public sector corruption, (ii) limits on corruption in public service delivery, (iii) equity in state employment, and (iv) willingness to fight corruption. It measures the performance of public institutions and local governments in controlling corruption in the public sector. It also reflects citizens’ tolerance of corrupt practices, and the willingness to curb corruption by both local governments and citizens.

Below are snapshots of key findings about provincial performance in control of corruption in the public sector. Map 3.4 presents aggregate dimensional scores for 63 provinces by four quartiles. Table 3.4 shows sub-dimensional scores by province, while Figure 3.4a shows changes over the two years of 2016 and 2017. Since the indicators in Dimension 4 have changed little since 2011, Figure 3.4b compares the performance of local governments in 2012 and 2017, both the second year in consecutive government terms. Also, Figures 3.4c and 3.4d reveal citizens’ assessment of levels of corruption and nepotism by province.

Map 3.4: Provincial Performance in Control of Corruption in the Public Sector by Quartiles, 2017

Control of Corruptionin the Public Sector

Best Performers

High Average

Low Average

Poor Performers

54 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Table 3.4: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Control of Corruption by Sub-dimension, 2017

Province 4: Control of Corruption

4.1: Limits on Public Sector Corruption

4.2: Limits on Corruption in

Service Delivery

4.3: Equity in Employment

4.4: Willingness to Fight Corruption

Ha Noi 5.52 1.36 1.73 0.77 1.67Ha Giang 5.30 1.33 1.64 0.85 1.49Cao Bang 5.96 1.65 1.90 0.84 1.57Bac Kan 5.61 1.63 1.71 0.84 1.43Tuyen Quang 6.19 1.70 1.88 1.06 1.55Lao Cai 6.53 1.70 2.00 1.10 1.74Dien Bien 6.25 1.69 2.06 0.95 1.55Lai Chau 5.32 1.45 1.56 0.82 1.49Son La 6.08 1.63 1.86 1.02 1.57Yen Bai 5.80 1.47 1.93 0.73 1.67Hoa Binh 5.98 1.65 1.83 0.91 1.60Thai Nguyen 5.68 1.50 1.71 0.77 1.70Lang Son 5.82 1.61 1.80 0.96 1.45Quang Ninh 6.28 1.65 1.97 1.04 1.62Bac Giang 6.15 1.61 1.97 0.98 1.59Phu Tho 6.56 1.83 2.02 0.95 1.76Vinh Phuc 6.34 1.77 1.88 1.05 1.63Bac Ninh 6.34 1.77 1.92 0.82 1.83Hai Duong 6.61 1.88 1.96 1.08 1.70Hai Phong 4.36 0.90 1.18 0.63 1.66Hung Yen 5.15 1.27 1.50 0.77 1.61Thai Binh 6.24 1.75 1.80 0.97 1.72Ha Nam 5.83 1.43 1.84 0.88 1.69Nam Dinh 6.51 1.86 1.88 1.08 1.68Ninh Binh 6.10 1.67 1.87 0.90 1.65Thanh Hoa 6.60 1.73 1.97 1.18 1.72Nghe An 5.86 1.50 1.73 1.03 1.60Ha Tinh 6.56 1.75 2.00 1.13 1.68Quang Binh 7.15 2.03 2.08 1.19 1.85Quang Tri 6.32 1.68 1.99 0.97 1.69Thua Thien-Hue 6.21 1.60 1.89 1.10 1.62Da Nang 6.96 1.79 2.09 1.12 1.96Quang Nam 6.73 1.76 2.04 1.15 1.78Quang Ngai 6.62 1.83 2.02 1.02 1.75Binh Dinh 7.19 1.98 2.09 1.30 1.81Phu Yen 6.23 1.62 2.00 1.03 1.59Khanh Hoa 5.98 1.58 1.87 0.95 1.57Ninh Thuan 6.64 1.83 2.04 1.03 1.73Binh Thuan 6.35 1.57 2.07 1.04 1.67Kon Tum 5.43 1.39 1.63 0.83 1.58Gia Lai 5.71 1.49 1.82 0.86 1.54Dak Lak 5.20 1.31 1.53 0.74 1.62Dak Nong 5.09 1.24 1.59 0.63 1.63Lam Dong 5.96 1.51 1.80 0.96 1.70Binh Phuoc 5.94 1.47 1.82 0.93 1.72Tay Ninh 6.89 1.85 2.04 1.30 1.70Binh Duong 4.99 1.16 1.53 0.70 1.61Dong Nai 6.35 1.55 1.99 1.09 1.72Ba Ria-Vung Tau 6.75 1.73 2.05 1.21 1.76Ho Chi Minh City 5.46 1.23 1.70 0.82 1.72Long An 7.23 1.98 2.10 1.33 1.81Tien Giang 6.96 1.93 2.12 1.26 1.65Ben Tre 7.16 1.86 2.19 1.30 1.81Tra Vinh 6.71 1.76 2.13 1.15 1.67Vinh Long 6.68 1.74 1.93 1.30 1.70Dong Thap 6.32 1.65 1.89 1.19 1.60An Giang 6.95 1.84 2.01 1.38 1.71Kien Giang 6.27 1.65 1.88 1.23 1.50Can Tho 7.16 1.97 2.05 1.34 1.79Hau Giang 6.61 1.79 1.92 1.20 1.70Soc Trang 6.45 1.70 1.89 1.19 1.67Bac Lieu 6.85 1.83 2.08 1.42 1.51Ca Mau 6.26 1.53 1.93 1.08 1.72

Note: Figures are mean scores based on a scale of 1-10 points for the dimensional level (the first left column), and a scale of 0.25-2.5 points for sub-dimensional levels (the other four columns). Blue colour is for best performers (16 provinces); green colour for high average performers (16 provinces); orange colour for low average performers (15 provinces); and light yellow for poor performers (16 provinces). The provincial order is by provincial codes.

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 55

Figure 3.4a: Year-on-year Change in Control of Corruption in the Public Sector, 2016–2017

Note: Y = percentage change in 2017 data from 2016 data, with a change of ±5% defined as statistically significant.

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Dak NongHung YenHai Phong

Ha GiangDak Lak

Dong ThapBac Kan

Bac GiangHa Nam

Quang TriHa Tinh

Thai BinhPhu ThoLai Chau

Son LaLang Son

Tien GiangKhanh Hoa

Can ThoNinh BinhKon Tum

Dien BienPhu Yen

Ninh ThuanCa MauBen Tre

Hau GiangThai Nguyen

Vinh LongGia LaiHa Noi

Tay NinhNghe An

Hai DuongDong NaiCao BangHoa Binh

Binh PhuocBinh Dinh

Lam DongHo Chi Minh City

Vinh PhucTuyen Quang

Tra VinhThanh Hoa

Long AnThua Thien-Hue

Bac NinhKien GiangSoc Trang

Yen BaiQuang NamQuang Binh

Da NangNam Dinh

Quang NgaiBinh DuongBinh Thuan

An GiangLao Cai

Ba Ria-Vung TauBac Lieu

Quang Ninh

Y<-5

5<=Y=>5

Y>5

56 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Figure 3.4b: Five-year Change in Control of Corruption in the Public Sector, 2012 against 2017

Note: Y = percentage change in 2017 data from 2012 data, with a change of ±5% defined as statistically significant.

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Binh DuongBac Kan

Ho Chi Minh CityHung Yen

Ha NamHai PhongSoc TrangLang Son

Dak NongGia Lai

Quang TriSon La

Ha GiangTien Giang

Binh PhuocBac Giang

Phu YenNinh Binh

Lam DongDak Lak

Nghe AnCa Mau

Tuyen QuangThua Thien-Hue

Thai BinhVinh Long

Phu ThoDa NangHoa Binh

Dong ThapBinh Dinh

Hau GiangVinh Phuc

Quang NamBa Ria-Vung Tau

Nam DinhKon Tum

Thai NguyenLong An

Binh ThuanHa Noi

Ben TreHa Tinh

Thanh HoaBac Ninh

Quang NgaiLai ChauTay Ninh

Hai DuongYen Bai

Can ThoQuang Ninh

Lao CaiDong Nai

Tra VinhQuang BinhKien Giang

Bac LieuCao BangAn Giang

Khanh HoaNinh Thuan

Dien Bien

Y<-5

5<=Y=>5

Y>5

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 57

Figure 3.4c: Citizen Perceptions of Corruption by Province, 2017(Branch size = percentage of respondents agreeing to provided positive statements; Perfect = 100% agreement)

No Diverting of Public Funds

No Bribes for Land Title

No Bribes at Hospital

No Bribes for Teachers’ Favours

No Kickbacks on Construction

No Bribes for State Employment

Zero Hai Phong Binh Duong Hung Yen Dak Nong HCMC Dak Lak Ha Giang Kon Tum

Ha Noi Thai Nguyen Lai Chau Ha Nam Binh Phuoc Gia Lai Nghe An Lam Dong Yen Bai

Bac Kan Khanh Hoa Hoa Binh Lang Son Thai Binh Ninh Binh Ca Mau Dong Nai Son La

Cao Bang TT-Hue Bac Giang Bac Ninh Dong Thap Kien Giang Tuyen Quang Binh Thuan Quang Tri

Quang Ninh Phu Yen Vinh Phuc Lao Cai Nam Dinh Hai Duong Dien Bien Soc Trang Phu Tho

Ha Tinh Thanh Hoa Quang Nam Hau Giang BRVT Vinh Long Quang Ngai Da Nang Ninh Thuan

An Giang Tay Ninh Tra Vinh Bac Lieu Quang Binh Can Tho Ben Tre Binh Dinh Tien Giang

Long An Perfect

Best performers

Poorest performers

Land Registry O�cial

Applying for government position of

Commune Justice O�cer

Policeman

Teacher

People's Committee Sta�

Zero Lai Chau Yen Bai Dak Nong Binh Duong Lang Son Tra Vinh Soc Trang Ha Giang

Dak Lak Cao Bang Dien Bien Ninh Thuan Quang Ngai Kon Tum Ha Noi Bac Ninh Bac Kan

Khanh Hoa Phu Yen Son La Hau Giang Gia Lai Hai Phong Ninh Binh Quang Ninh Tien Giang

Thai Nguyen HCMC Hoa Binh Ca Mau Vinh Long TT-Hue Bac Giang Ha Nam Lam Dong

Quang Tri Thai Binh Hung Yen Phu Tho Vinh Phuc Lao Cai Binh Thuan Da Nang Ha Tinh

Tuyen Quang Binh Phuoc Tay Ninh Quang Nam Long An Thanh Hoa Kien Giang Nghe An Nam Dinh

BRVT Dong Thap Ben Tre Can Tho Quang Binh An Giang Binh Dinh Dong Nai Hai Duong

Bac Lieu Perfect

Best performers

Poorest performers

Figure 3.4d: Relationship Needed for State Employment by Province, 2017(Branch size = percentage of respondents agreeing that relationship is not important or not important at all; Perfect = 100% agreement)

58 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Dimension 5: Public Administrative Procedures

This dimension reflects the quality of public administrative services in areas important to citizens. It includes certification services as well as application procedures for construction permits, LURCs, and personal documents. In particular, it examines how professional and responsive government staff are in providing public administrative services.

Below are snapshots of key findings about provincial performance in provision of administrative procedures and services for citizens. Map 3.5 presents

aggregate dimensional scores for 63 provinces by four quartiles. Table 3.5 shows sub-dimensional scores by province, while Figure 3.5 shows changes over the two years of 2016 and 2017. In addition, Figures 3.5a and 3.5b summarize provincial performance for two out of four administrative services (for LURCs and for personal documents) at the commune level by four criteria also used in 2016: (i) publicity of application fees, (ii) competence of civil servants, (iii) behaviour of civil servants, and (iv) receipt of results within the set deadline.

Map 3.5: Provincial Performance in Public Administrative Procedures by Quartiles, 2017

Public AdministrativeProcedures

Best Performers

High Average

Low Average

Poor Perfomers

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 59

Table 3.5: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Public Administrative Procedures by Sub-dimensions, 2017

Province 5: Public Administrative

Procedures

5.1: Certification Procedures

5.2: Construction Permits

5.3: Land Title Procedures

5.4: Personal Procedures

Ha Noi 6.97 1.73 1.82 1.56 1.86Ha Giang 6.79 1.68 1.65 1.68 1.78Cao Bang 6.78 1.70 1.63 1.63 1.82Bac Kan 6.81 1.73 1.74 1.62 1.72Tuyen Quang 7.04 1.79 1.78 1.56 1.91Lao Cai 6.81 1.66 1.79 1.51 1.85Dien Bien 6.99 1.74 1.73 1.67 1.86Lai Chau 6.89 1.62 1.82 1.59 1.86Son La 6.94 1.71 1.80 1.61 1.82Yen Bai 7.05 1.74 1.85 1.64 1.82Hoa Binh 7.13 1.91 1.83 1.46 1.92Thai Nguyen 7.16 1.86 1.80 1.56 1.94Lang Son 6.93 1.72 1.86 1.65 1.70Quang Ninh 7.03 1.73 1.83 1.59 1.88Bac Giang 7.16 1.74 1.85 1.62 1.95Phu Tho 7.42 1.84 1.91 1.76 1.91Vinh Phuc 7.16 1.77 1.87 1.61 1.90Bac Ninh 7.34 1.85 1.90 1.65 1.94Hai Duong 7.18 1.81 1.81 1.64 1.91Hai Phong 7.47 1.82 1.91 1.91 1.84Hung Yen 6.93 1.74 1.86 1.48 1.85Thai Binh 7.07 1.78 1.77 1.54 1.99Ha Nam 6.94 1.85 1.65 1.62 1.82Nam Dinh 7.47 1.89 1.99 1.62 1.97Ninh Binh 7.37 1.91 1.90 1.67 1.88Thanh Hoa 7.28 1.87 1.81 1.69 1.90Nghe An 7.05 1.88 1.85 1.45 1.88Ha Tinh 7.11 1.80 1.87 1.54 1.90Quang Binh 7.45 1.91 1.83 1.67 2.04Quang Tri 6.89 1.76 1.62 1.60 1.90Thua Thien-Hue 7.08 1.82 1.72 1.66 1.88Da Nang 7.41 1.78 1.96 1.72 1.95Quang Nam 6.98 1.66 1.91 1.49 1.92Quang Ngai 7.32 1.80 1.86 1.71 1.96Binh Dinh 7.25 1.88 1.82 1.61 1.94Phu Yen 7.12 1.70 1.93 1.58 1.91Khanh Hoa 6.89 1.76 1.77 1.53 1.83Ninh Thuan 7.30 1.71 2.03 1.62 1.94Binh Thuan 7.06 1.79 1.79 1.65 1.83Kon Tum 7.11 1.90 1.80 1.56 1.85Gia Lai 6.99 1.69 1.87 1.66 1.78Dak Lak 7.24 1.84 1.91 1.67 1.82Dak Nong 7.18 1.78 1.78 1.68 1.94Lam Dong 6.81 1.69 1.73 1.55 1.85Binh Phuoc 7.55 1.89 1.83 1.72 2.10Tay Ninh 7.39 1.70 1.89 1.82 1.98Binh Duong 6.97 1.63 1.78 1.72 1.84Dong Nai 7.43 1.93 1.86 1.67 1.97Ba Ria-Vung Tau 7.23 1.80 1.78 1.73 1.92Ho Chi Minh City 7.04 1.81 1.80 1.57 1.86Long An 7.26 1.84 1.72 1.74 1.97Tien Giang 7.30 1.66 1.87 1.84 1.93Ben Tre 7.69 1.89 1.96 1.89 1.95Tra Vinh 7.43 1.81 1.89 1.86 1.87Vinh Long 7.30 1.72 1.97 1.82 1.79Dong Thap 7.60 1.86 1.97 1.90 1.87An Giang 7.26 1.78 1.90 1.72 1.87Kien Giang 7.07 1.67 1.76 1.84 1.79Can Tho 6.95 1.79 1.75 1.58 1.84Hau Giang 7.14 1.73 1.88 1.65 1.88Soc Trang 7.16 1.64 1.88 1.73 1.91Bac Lieu 7.40 1.87 1.90 1.81 1.82Ca Mau 7.27 1.83 1.81 1.60 2.03

Note: Figures are scores based on a scale of 1-10 points for the dimensional level (the first left column), and a scale of 0.25-2.5 points for the sub-dimensional levels (the other four columns). Blue colour is for best performers (16 provinces); green colour for high average performers (16 provinces); orange colour for low average performers (15 provinces); and light yellow for poor performers (16 provinces). The provincial order is by provincial codes.

60 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Figure 3.5: Year-on-year Change in Public Administrative Procedures, 2016–2017

Note: Y = percentage change in 2017 data from 2016 data, with a change of ±5% defined as statistically significant.

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Can ThoBac KanHa Tinh

Lai ChauTuyen Quang

Ha NamSoc TrangCao Bang

Yen BaiQuang TriHung Yen

Quang BinhNghe An

Son LaDien Bien

Ha NoiVinh LongBac Giang

Quang NgaiKhanh HoaDong Thap

Lao CaiNinh ThuanBinh Thuan

Vinh PhucLam Dong

Binh DuongLong An

Gia LaiHo Chi Minh City

Tien GiangThai BinhAn GiangPhu Tho

Hoa BinhDa NangDak Lak

Thanh HoaPhu Yen

Quang NinhQuang Nam

Ha GiangHai Phong

Lang SonThai Nguyen

Hau GiangHai Duong

Ben TreDong NaiBinh Dinh

Ba Ria-Vung TauCa Mau

Bac NinhKon Tum

Thua Thien-HueKien GiangNinh BinhNam Dinh

Tay NinhDak Nong

Tra VinhBinh Phuoc

Bac Lieu

Y<-5

5<=Y=>5

Y>5

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 61

Figure 3.5a: Citizen Assessment of Administrative Services for LURCs, 2017(Branch size = percentage of respondents agreeing to provided positive statements; Perfect = 100% agreement)

Fees Displayed

O�cials Competent

Treated w/Respect

Satis�ed w/Service

Zero Thai Binh Vinh Phuc Binh Dinh Hung Yen Binh Duong Ninh Binh Ha Noi

Tuyen Quang Lao Cai Quang Ngai Ha Tinh Ha Giang Bac Giang Ca Mau Thai Nguyen

Nam Dinh TT-Hue HCMC Lai Chau Hai Phong Can Tho Da Nang Hau Giang

Nghe An Hoa Binh Binh Phuoc Phu Yen Gia Lai Dong Nai Ninh Thuan Tien Giang

Kon Tum Quang Tri Yen Bai Long An Bac Kan Quang Nam Thanh Hoa Son La

Dong Thap Ha Nam Bac Lieu Bac Ninh Dak Nong Quang Binh Binh Thuan Dien Bien

Dak Lak Vinh Long Phu Tho BRVT Tay Ninh Tra Vinh Cao Bang Kien Giang

An Giang Ben Tre Perfect

Fees Displayed

O�cials Competent

Treated with Respect

Deadline Met

Best performers

Poorest performers

Fees Displayed

O�cials Competent

Treated with Respect

Deadline Met

Zero Lai Chau Vinh Long Dong Thap Dien Bien TT-Hue Dak Lak Gia Lai Hau Giang

Kon Tum Quang Nam Cao Bang Phu Yen Ha Nam Lao Cai Bac Kan Tien Giang Nam Dinh

Khanh Hoa Yen Bai Ha Giang Soc Trang Ha Noi Can Tho Phu Tho Lang Son Binh Thuan

Kien Giang Long An Ninh Thuan Hai Phong Nghe An Bac Lieu Binh Dinh Thanh Hoa Vinh Phuc

Tra Vinh Bac Giang Lam Dong Hung Yen Dak Nong Dong Nai Son La Tay Ninh Quang Ngai

Thai Nguyen Hoa Binh HCMC Ben Tre Ca Mau Quang Tri An Giang Tuyen Quang Ha Tinh

Bac Ninh Hai Duong Binh Phuoc Quang Ninh BRVT Thai Binh Quang Binh Da Nang Ninh Binh

Binh Duong Perfect

Best performers

Poorest performers

Figure 3.5b: Assessment of Administrative Services at the Commune Level, 2017(Branch size = percentage of respondents agreeing to provided positive statements; Perfect = 100% agreement)

62 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Dimension 6: Public Service Delivery

The Public Service Delivery dimension looks at four public services: public health care, primary public education, basic infrastructure, and residential law and order. To inform this dimension, citizens are asked about their direct experiences with the accessibility, quality, and availability of these services.

Below are snapshots of key findings about provincial performance in provision of public services to citizens. Map 3.6 presents the aggregate dimensional

scores of 63 provinces by four quartiles. Table 3.6 shows sub-dimensional scores by province, while Figure 3.6a shows changes over the two years of 2016 and 2017. Since Dimension 6 has changed little since 2011, Figure 3.6b compares the performance of local governments in 2012 and 2017, both the second year in consecutive government terms. Also, Figures 3.6c and 3.6d summarize citizens’ assessment of the quality of public primary education and healthcare services by province, based on national standards.

Map 3.6: Provincial Performance in Public Service Delivery by Quartiles, 2017

Public Service Delivery

Best Performers

High Average

Low Average

Poor Performers

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 63

Table 3.6: Dashboard of Provincial Performance in Public Service Delivery by Sub-dimension, 2017

Province 6: Public Service Delivery 6.1: Public Health 6.1: Primary

Education6.3: Basic

Infrastructure 6.4: Law and Order

Ha Noi 7.02 1.79 1.69 1.90 1.64Ha Giang 6.68 2.03 1.65 1.41 1.61Cao Bang 6.72 2.04 1.70 1.36 1.61Bac Kan 6.91 2.07 1.63 1.52 1.69Tuyen Quang 7.06 2.03 1.62 1.73 1.68Lao Cai 7.00 2.00 1.70 1.61 1.69Dien Bien 6.87 2.04 1.53 1.57 1.72Lai Chau 6.79 1.78 1.67 1.59 1.76Son La 6.67 1.95 1.57 1.45 1.69Yen Bai 6.75 1.93 1.65 1.51 1.66Hoa Binh 7.24 1.97 1.83 1.74 1.70Thai Nguyen 7.06 1.88 1.68 1.82 1.68Lang Son 6.93 1.83 1.58 1.86 1.64Quang Ninh 6.83 1.95 1.61 1.61 1.65Bac Giang 7.06 1.92 1.69 1.69 1.75Phu Tho 6.78 1.93 1.61 1.58 1.67Vinh Phuc 7.00 1.88 1.66 1.81 1.66Bac Ninh 7.75 2.10 1.98 2.01 1.67Hai Duong 7.30 2.06 1.65 1.97 1.62Hai Phong 7.50 1.76 1.67 2.40 1.67Hung Yen 7.46 1.82 2.06 1.99 1.60Thai Binh 7.22 2.01 1.62 1.83 1.76Ha Nam 7.11 1.99 1.61 1.87 1.63Nam Dinh 7.20 1.99 1.80 1.72 1.69Ninh Binh 7.17 2.05 1.66 1.83 1.64Thanh Hoa 7.08 1.95 1.64 1.86 1.63Nghe An 6.68 1.82 1.67 1.55 1.64Ha Tinh 7.11 2.09 1.72 1.63 1.67Quang Binh 7.23 2.13 1.71 1.74 1.66Quang Tri 7.38 2.02 1.66 2.04 1.65Thua Thien-Hue 7.32 1.97 1.46 2.22 1.67Da Nang 7.45 2.00 1.41 2.38 1.67Quang Nam 6.96 2.08 1.65 1.58 1.64Quang Ngai 6.65 2.01 1.46 1.51 1.66Binh Dinh 7.31 2.08 1.71 1.85 1.68Phu Yen 7.01 2.06 1.69 1.64 1.62Khanh Hoa 7.23 1.97 1.62 2.00 1.64Ninh Thuan 7.28 2.03 1.59 1.95 1.70Binh Thuan 6.88 1.83 1.64 1.87 1.53Kon Tum 6.90 2.00 1.62 1.78 1.50Gia Lai 6.80 1.79 1.69 1.69 1.63Dak Lak 7.00 1.99 1.63 1.74 1.65Dak Nong 7.05 1.99 1.60 1.79 1.67Lam Dong 7.01 1.85 1.66 1.85 1.64Binh Phuoc 6.88 1.85 1.62 1.82 1.58Tay Ninh 7.15 1.87 1.77 1.83 1.67Binh Duong 6.61 1.69 1.23 2.05 1.63Dong Nai 6.93 1.88 1.65 1.80 1.60Ba Ria-Vung Tau 7.83 1.99 1.85 2.33 1.66Ho Chi Minh City 7.60 1.77 1.93 2.33 1.57Long An 7.28 1.93 1.75 1.89 1.72Tien Giang 6.62 1.91 1.69 1.37 1.65Ben Tre 7.67 2.02 2.00 1.95 1.71Tra Vinh 7.28 1.92 1.97 1.66 1.74Vinh Long 7.78 1.95 1.95 2.12 1.77Dong Thap 7.08 1.94 1.66 1.82 1.66An Giang 7.61 2.08 1.69 2.15 1.69Kien Giang 7.47 1.83 1.98 1.97 1.69Can Tho 7.48 1.95 1.73 2.07 1.74Hau Giang 6.98 1.96 1.70 1.66 1.66Soc Trang 7.05 1.96 1.67 1.72 1.70Bac Lieu 7.43 2.04 1.70 1.98 1.70Ca Mau 6.28 1.93 1.06 1.63 1.67

Note: Figures are mean scores based on a scale of 1-10 points for the dimensional level (the first left column), and a scale of 0.25-2.5 points for the sub-dimensional levels (the other four columns). Blue colour is for best performers (16 provinces); green colour for high average performers (16 provinces); orange colour for low average performers (15 provinces); and light yellow for poor performers (16 provinces). The provincial order is by provincial codes.

64 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Figure 3.6a: Year-on-year Change in Public Service Delivery, 2016–2017

Note: Y = percentage change in 2017 data from 2016 data, with a change of ±5% defined as statistically significant.

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Binh DuongDa Nang

Ca MauHai Phong

Tuyen QuangSon La

Thai BinhThua Thien-Hue

Soc TrangNinh Thuan

Ninh BinhCan ThoHa Tinh

Thanh HoaBinh Thuan

Lang SonPhu Tho

Lao CaiBinh Phuoc

Tay NinhLam Dong

Dong ThapBa Ria-Vung Tau

Vinh PhucKon Tum

Bac GiangAn GiangNghe An

Binh DinhHung Yen

Yen BaiDien Bien

Ho Chi Minh CityThai Nguyen

Dong NaiCao Bang

Tien GiangQuang Binh

Dak NongKhanh Hoa

Gia LaiHa Nam

Hai DuongQuang Nam

Ha GiangHa Noi

Dak LakBac Kan

Quang NgaiNam Dinh

Bac NinhHoa Binh

Ben TreLong AnPhu YenLai Chau

Kien GiangQuang Ninh

Hau GiangTra VinhBac Lieu

Quang TriVinh Long

Y<-5

5<=Y=>5

Y>5

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 65

Figure 3.6b: Five-year Change in Public Service Delivery, 2012 against 2017

Note: Y = percentage change in 2017 data from 2012 data, with a change of ±5% defined as statistically significant.

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Binh DuongQuang Binh

Da NangHa Giang

Nam DinhTien Giang

Binh ThuanLai Chau

Lang SonNinh Thuan

Kon TumHa Noi

Quang NamDong Nai

Lam DongHau GiangThanh HoaHai Phong

Quang NgaiHo Chi Minh City

Dien BienNghe AnBac Kan

Hai DuongCa Mau

Binh DinhPhu Tho

Quang TriVinh Phuc

Son LaLong An

Tuyen QuangThua Thien-Hue

Soc TrangDak Lak

Thai BinhQuang Ninh

Phu YenCao BangHoa Binh

Ninh BinhKien GiangDong Thap

Thai NguyenBac LieuYen Bai

Bac GiangLao Cai

Ha NamVinh Long

Ba Ria-Vung TauBinh Phuoc

Gia LaiHa Tinh

Khanh HoaHung Yen

Ben TreCan Tho

An GiangTra Vinh

Bac NinhDak Nong

Tay Ninh

Y<-5

5<=Y=>5

Y>5

66 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Figure 3.6c: Citizens’ Assessment of Quality of Public Primary Schools, 2017(Branch size = percentage of respondents agreeing to provided positive statements; Perfect = 100% agreement)

Brick walls

Clean toilets

Free drinking water

Less than 36 students

Less than 3 shifts

No favoritism from teachers

Well quali�ed teachers

Regular feedback

Informed of school revenue

Best performers

Poorest performers

Zero BRVT Dien Bien Thai Binh Nam Dinh Son La Lang Son Dak Nong Dong Thap

Quang Ninh Binh Duong Hung Yen Hau Giang Tuyen Quang Vinh Long Khanh Hoa Soc Trang Ninh Thuan

Hai Duong Ben Tre Ha Giang Kon Tum Yen Bai Kien Giang Binh Thuan Dak Lak Vinh Phuc

Ha Nam Hai Phong Ninh Binh Dong Nai Tien Giang An Giang Binh Phuoc Bac Kan Hoa Binh

Phu Tho Thanh Hoa Lam Dong Phu Yen TT-Hue Quang Ngai Can Tho Quang Tri Tra Vinh

Da Nang HCMC Bac Lieu Ca Mau Lao Cai Ha Noi Binh Dinh Gia Lai Long An

Lai Chau Cao Bang Quang Binh Bac Ninh Ha Tinh Nghe An Thai Nguyen Tay Ninh Quang Nam

Bac Giang Perfect

No shared beds

Electric fan

Clean restroom

Regular visits by sta�

Treated with respect

Reasonable expenses

Reasonable waiting period

Disease/Injury cured

Private pharmacy

Satisfaction with service

Best performers

Poorest performers

Zero Binh Duong Gia Lai HCMC Bac Giang Ca Mau Ha Noi Lang Son Nghe An

Yen Bai Can Tho Hau Giang Hung Yen Long An Kien Giang Vinh Phuc Ben Tre Nam Dinh

Thai Binh Dak Nong Da Nang Thanh Hoa Quang Tri Phu Tho Thai Nguyen Ha Nam Binh Thuan

Lam Dong Binh Phuoc Ninh Binh Dong Nai Tay Ninh Soc Trang Binh Dinh Dong Thap Khanh Hoa

Ha Giang Tra Vinh Son La Ha Tinh TT-Hue Bac Lieu Lao Cai Quang Nam Tuyen Quang

Bac Ninh Quang Ngai Hai Duong Bac Kan Dien Bien Hoa Binh Vinh Long Lai Chau Dak Lak

Kon Tum Quang Binh Quang Ninh An Giang Tien Giang Ninh Thuan Phu Yen BRVT Hai Phong

Cao Bang Perfect

Figure 3.6d: Citizens’ Assessment of Quality of Public District Hospitals, 2017(Branch size = percentage of respondents agreeing to provided positive statements; Perfect = 100% agreement)

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 67

Aggregate 2017 PAPI and 2016-2017 Comparisons

This section presents 2017 provincial aggregate performance by quartiles, calculated by adding up each province’s scores in the six PAPI dimensions. With the aggregate scores, provinces can assess where they are in a comparative perspective with other provinces of similar socio-economic and geographical endowments. In PAPI reports, provincial ranking is de-emphasised because each of the 63 provinces have different local conditions due to their unique socio-economic, demographic, and geographical circumstances. It is important to reiterate that, as an aggregate index, PAPI serves as a tool that provides a “first impression” of a province’s performance in a certain year in a holistic manner. To understand what they can do to improve their performance, provincial leaders are advised to examine the findings for all indicators of the PAPI dimensions and sub-dimensions.

This section also shows trends in the performance of local governments in the current government term (2016-2021). It aims to create baselines for

key performance indicators so that the central government can have an overview of how provincial authorities perform over time. By comparing the results for indicators in 2017 with 2016, the findings reveal key areas of progress, as well as setbacks, in the first two years of the current government office. The findings suggest areas where different stakeholders can do more and/or be more engaged to improve national governance and public administration performance.

Below are snapshots of key aggregate findings for provincial performance in governance and public administration. Map 3.7 presents aggregate PAPI scores of all 63 provinces by four quartiles. Table 3.7 provides a dashboard of dimensional and PAPI scores by province, while Figure 3.7 presents the year-on-year provincial performance over the two years of 2016 and 2017. Figure 3.7a presents the converging trend in provincial aggregated PAPI scores over time. Figure 3.7b shows the correlation between the 2017 PAPI and the 2017 Provincial Competitiveness Index (PCI).

68 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Un-weighted 2017 PAPI

Best Performers

High Average

Low Average

Poor Performers

Map 3.7: Provincial Performance in Governance and Public Administration by Quartiles, 2017

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 69

Table 3.7: Dashboard of Aggregate Dimensional Performance by Province, 2017

Province 1: Participation at Local Levels

2: Transparency 3: Vertical Accountability

4: Control of Corruption

5: Public Admin.

Procedures

6: Public Service Delivery

2017 PAPI (Unweighted)

Ha Noi 5.25 5.27 4.61 5.52 6.97 7.02 34.63Ha Giang 5.02 5.57 4.60 5.30 6.79 6.68 33.97Cao Bang 5.19 5.78 5.43 5.96 6.78 6.72 35.85Bac Kan 5.40 5.30 4.32 5.61 6.81 6.91 34.34Tuyen Quang 5.69 6.13 5.39 6.19 7.04 7.06 37.50Lao Cai 5.21 5.88 5.56 6.53 6.81 7.00 37.00Dien Bien 4.99 5.63 5.06 6.25 6.99 6.87 35.79Lai Chau 4.86 5.14 4.10 5.32 6.89 6.79 33.10Son La 5.35 5.46 5.14 6.08 6.94 6.67 35.63Yen Bai 5.02 5.20 4.55 5.80 7.05 6.75 34.38Hoa Binh 5.80 5.82 5.30 5.98 7.13 7.24 37.26Thai Nguyen 6.09 6.21 5.33 5.68 7.16 7.06 37.53Lang Son 5.24 5.28 4.76 5.82 6.93 6.93 34.96Quang Ninh 5.91 5.85 4.82 6.28 7.03 6.83 36.72Bac Giang 6.04 5.81 4.95 6.15 7.16 7.06 37.17Phu Tho 5.36 6.19 4.97 6.56 7.42 6.78 37.28Vinh Phuc 5.28 5.32 4.79 6.34 7.16 7.00 35.89Bac Ninh 6.39 6.29 5.09 6.34 7.34 7.75 39.20Hai Duong 6.28 6.42 4.94 6.61 7.18 7.30 38.73Hai Phong 5.22 6.11 5.14 4.36 7.47 7.50 35.81Hung Yen 5.86 5.37 5.09 5.15 6.93 7.46 35.86Thai Binh 6.12 5.92 5.74 6.24 7.07 7.22 38.31Ha Nam 5.96 5.65 6.08 5.83 6.94 7.11 37.58Nam Dinh 5.81 6.08 6.25 6.51 7.47 7.20 39.32Ninh Binh 5.69 6.23 5.19 6.10 7.37 7.17 37.75Thanh Hoa 5.30 5.85 5.25 6.60 7.28 7.08 37.35Nghe An 5.63 5.51 5.02 5.86 7.05 6.68 35.75Ha Tinh 6.41 6.36 4.65 6.56 7.12 7.11 38.20Quang Binh 5.81 6.47 5.42 7.15 7.45 7.23 39.53Quang Tri 5.62 5.92 5.51 6.32 6.89 7.38 37.63Thua Thien-Hue 5.18 5.50 4.74 6.21 7.08 7.32 36.03Da Nang 5.16 5.51 4.71 6.96 7.41 7.45 37.21Quang Nam 5.97 5.46 4.98 6.73 6.98 6.96 37.08Quang Ngai 4.94 5.26 5.46 6.62 7.32 6.65 36.25Binh Dinh 5.51 5.72 5.36 7.19 7.25 7.31 38.35Phu Yen 5.09 5.52 5.30 6.23 7.12 7.01 36.28Khanh Hoa 5.21 5.42 4.84 5.98 6.89 7.23 35.58Ninh Thuan 5.08 5.49 5.14 6.64 7.30 7.28 36.93Binh Thuan 4.86 5.12 4.56 6.35 7.07 6.88 34.84Kon Tum 5.19 5.09 5.40 5.43 7.11 6.90 35.12Gia Lai 5.29 5.47 4.28 5.71 6.99 6.80 34.54Dak Lak 5.21 5.17 4.82 5.20 7.24 7.00 34.64Dak Nong 5.25 5.61 4.40 5.09 7.18 7.05 34.57Lam Dong 5.58 5.33 4.51 5.96 6.81 7.01 35.21Binh Phuoc 5.27 5.93 5.44 5.94 7.55 6.88 37.00Tay Ninh 4.92 5.59 5.40 6.89 7.39 7.15 37.33Binh Duong 4.33 5.54 5.05 4.99 6.97 6.61 33.49Dong Nai 5.29 5.69 5.21 6.35 7.43 6.93 36.90Ba Ria-Vung Tau 5.59 6.34 5.18 6.75 7.23 7.83 38.92Ho Chi Minh City 4.70 5.93 5.15 5.46 7.04 7.60 35.88Long An 5.42 6.18 4.93 7.23 7.26 7.28 38.30Tien Giang 4.83 5.21 4.72 6.96 7.30 6.62 35.64Ben Tre 5.60 5.99 5.39 7.16 7.69 7.67 39.52Tra Vinh 5.27 5.21 4.43 6.71 7.43 7.28 36.33Vinh Long 4.91 5.42 5.56 6.68 7.30 7.78 37.66Dong Thap 5.19 5.80 5.35 6.32 7.60 7.08 37.34An Giang 5.25 5.89 4.56 6.95 7.26 7.61 37.51Kien Giang 5.19 5.26 4.46 6.27 7.07 7.47 35.71Can Tho 5.56 6.12 5.04 7.16 6.95 7.48 38.30Hau Giang 4.55 5.45 5.43 6.61 7.15 6.98 36.18Soc Trang 4.80 4.99 4.66 6.45 7.16 7.05 35.10Bac Lieu 5.79 6.33 4.92 6.85 7.40 7.43 38.72Ca Mau 4.65 5.32 5.17 6.26 7.27 6.28 34.95

Note: Figures are mean scores based on a scale of 1-10 points for the dimensional level (the first left columns with numbers), and a scale of 10-60 points for the aggregate PAPI score (the last right column). Blue colour is for best performers (16 provinces); green colour for high average performers (16 provinces); orange colour for low average performers (15 provinces); and light yellow for poor performers (16 provinces). The provincial order is by provincial codes.

70 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Figure 3.7: Year-on-year Change in Aggregate PAPI Score by Province, 2016 –2017

Note: Y = percentage change in 2017 data from 2012 data, with a change of ±5% defined as statistically significant.

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Hung YenDak Nong

Bac KanDa NangPhu ThoCan ThoHa TinhDak Lak

Tien GiangLai Chau

Dien BienBac Giang

Quang NgaiDong Thap

Quang TriSoc Trang

Yen BaiNinh Thuan

Lam DongHa Giang

Binh ThuanSon LaGia Lai

Nghe AnHai PhongNinh BinhKon TumLang SonTay Ninh

Vinh PhucThai Nguyen

Ha NamThai Binh

Hai DuongThua Thien-Hue

Ca MauBinh Dinh

Ha NoiTuyen Quang

Binh DuongHoa Binh

Ho Chi Minh CityQuang BinhThanh Hoa

Ben TreQuang Nam

Bac NinhLao Cai

Khanh HoaNam Dinh

Binh PhuocLong An

Vinh LongPhu Yen

Cao BangHau Giang

An GiangDong Nai

Ba Ria-Vung TauKien Giang

Tra VinhQuang Ninh

Bac Lieu

5<=Y=>5

Y>5

2017 PROVINCIAL PERFORMANCECHAPTER 3 71

Figure 3.7a: A Converging Trend in Provincial Performance, 2011-2017

40.3542.33

39.57 39.53

31.93 31.7332.59

33.10

10

20

30

40

50

60

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

PAPI

Agg

rega

te S

core

Ran

ge (1

0-60

poi

nts)

Year of Nation-wide PAPI Surveys

Highest

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Lowest

Ha Noi

Ha Giang

Cao Bang

Bac Kan

Tuyen Quang Lao Cai

Dien Bien

Lai Chau

Son La

Yen Bai

Hoa Binh Thai Nguyen

Lang Son

Quang NinhBac Giang

Phu Tho

Vinh Phuc

Bac NinhHai Duong

Hai PhongHung Yen

Thai Binh

Ha Nam

Nam Dinh

Ninh Binh Thanh Hoa

Nghe An

Ha Tinh

Quang Binh

Quang Tri

TT-Hue

Da Nang

Quang Nam

Quang Ngai

Binh Dinh

Phu Yen

Khanh Hoa

Ninh Thuan

Binh Thuan

Kon Tum

Gia Lai

Dak LakDak Nong

Lam Dong

Binh Phuoc

Tay Ninh

Binh Duong

Dong Nai

BRVT

HCMC

Long An

Tien Giang

Ben Tre

Tra Vinh

Vinh LongDong Thap

An Giang

Kien Giang

Can Tho

Hau Giang

Soc Trang

Bac Lieu

Ca Mau

32

34

36

38

40

Wei

ghte

d 20

17 P

API

55 60 65 70

Weighted 2017 PCI

95% CI Fitted Values

r=.34

Figure 3.7b: Correlation between the 2017 PAPI and 2017 Provincial Competitiveness Index (PCI)

2017 PROVINCIAL PROFILES26

PAPI2017

26 For detailed findings at the indicator level, see http://papi.org.vn/eng/documents-and-data-download.

74 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Ha Noi

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Ha Noi

5.76 5.99 5.73

5.00

6.86 7.06

5.51

6.26 6.06

5.18

6.87 7.02

5.46

6.335.94

5.64

6.85 6.95

5.316.01

5.645.23

6.80 6.82

5.05 5.225.58

4.99

6.536.72

5.34 5.08

4.26

5.24

7.096.72

5.25 5.274.61

5.52

6.97 7.02

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.79

1.69

1.90

1.64

1.67

1.62

1.86

1.65

1.60

1.60

1.93

1.60

1.51

1.59

2.11

1.60

1.59

1.61

2.13

1.62

1.68

1.64

2.06

1.65

1.75

1.65

2.00

1.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.73

1.82

1.56

1.86

1.70

1.85

1.67

1.87

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.15

1.17

1.29

2.04

1.05

1.18

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.36

1.73

0.77

1.67

1.25

1.65

0.70

1.65

1.15

1.53

0.63

1.68

1.31

1.56

0.65

1.71

1.53

1.63

0.79

1.69

1.21

1.50

0.71

1.76

1.12

1.59

0.64

1.65

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.88

1.68

1.70

1.80

1.58

1.70

1.81

1.73

1.68

2.40

1.75

1.86

2.46

2.14

1.73

2.68

1.97

1.61

2.57

1.89

1.54

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.04

1.68

1.58

0.95

1.09

1.68

1.52

1.04

1.07

1.46

1.60

0.93

1.12

1.59

1.79

0.82

1.15

1.68

1.66

0.96

1.19

1.82

1.66

0.84

1.26

1.91

1.71

0.87

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ha Noi

Provincial Performance in 2017 75

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Ha Giang

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Ha Giang

4.88 4.83 5.01 5.22

6.455.87

5.285.66 5.47 5.52

6.67 6.81

5.11 5.23 4.97 5.17

7.27

6.47

4.344.94 4.67

5.32

6.42 6.34

3.92

5.144.70 4.76

6.34

6.86

5.34 5.27

4.40

5.82

6.64 6.86

5.025.57

4.605.30

6.79 6.68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.03

1.65

1.41

1.61

1.95

1.63

1.26

1.64

2.10

1.81

1.30

1.65

1.92

1.58

1.30

1.53

1.99

1.56

1.43

1.49

2.06

1.78

1.38

1.58

1.63

1.34

1.31

1.59

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.68

1.65

1.68

1.78

1.62

1.78

1.45

1.78

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

1.92

1.45

1.23

1.69

1.53

1.19

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.33

1.64

0.85

1.49

1.37

1.94

0.89

1.62

1.09

1.53

0.58

1.55

1.29

1.75

0.66

1.62

1.19

1.65

0.69

1.65

1.27

1.82

0.83

1.59

1.34

1.63

0.82

1.43

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.13

1.74

1.70

2.12

1.67

1.49

2.20

1.48

1.46

1.93

1.59

1.42

2.10

1.77

1.36

2.35

1.79

1.53

1.69

1.69

1.45

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.82

1.61

1.53

1.06

1.22

1.86

1.49

0.76

0.62

1.31

1.24

0.76

0.78

1.42

1.53

0.61

1.01

1.86

1.61

0.63

1.02

1.99

1.50

0.77

0.94

1.76

1.50

0.68

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ha Giang

76 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Cao Bang

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Cao Bang

5.31 5.52

4.80

4.05

6.596.26

5.54

6.28

5.52

4.75

6.866.39

5.18

6.03

5.27

6.056.60 6.42

4.845.43 5.22 5.40

6.54 6.40

4.53

5.92

4.815.40

6.516.68

5.215.50

4.44

5.53

7.026.68

5.195.78

5.435.96

6.78 6.72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.04

1.70

1.36

1.61

2.02

1.65

1.32

1.64

2.03

1.64

1.38

1.63

1.93

1.45

1.39

1.64

1.83

1.58

1.35

1.66

1.95

1.57

1.28

1.59

1.87

1.56

1.20

1.63

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.70

1.63

1.63

1.82

1.74

1.79

1.62

1.86

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.20

2.02

1.21

2.27

1.12

1.05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.65

1.90

0.84

1.57

1.45

1.72

0.67

1.69

1.32

1.65

0.80

1.63

1.24

1.60

0.84

1.72

1.77

1.80

0.83

1.65

1.28

1.40

0.80

1.26

0.83

1.43

0.46

1.33

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.34

1.84

1.60

2.30

1.58

1.62

2.62

1.82

1.48

2.08

1.78

1.57

2.53

1.94

1.55

2.23

2.38

1.67

2.44

1.71

1.36

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.94

1.85

1.50

0.90

0.91

1.93

1.39

0.98

0.87

1.48

1.37

0.81

0.82

1.75

1.56

0.70

1.05

2.01

1.43

0.70

1.08

1.93

1.73

0.80

1.09

2.15

1.47

0.60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cao Bang

Provincial Performance in 2017 77

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Bac Kan

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Bac Kan

5.60 5.77 5.73 5.89

7.206.48

5.61 5.776.24

6.547.11

6.77

5.396.07

5.58

6.41

7.276.70

5.33

6.21

5.486.05

6.71 6.80

4.72

5.855.31 5.48

6.766.78

5.35 5.455.05

5.90

7.196.78

5.39 5.30

4.32

5.61

6.81 6.91

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.07

1.63

1.52

1.69

1.99

1.59

1.42

1.67

2.01

1.64

1.46

1.67

1.99

1.60

1.62

1.60

1.97

1.61

1.57

1.55

2.04

1.68

1.52

1.53

1.95

1.54

1.47

1.51

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.73

1.74

1.62

1.72

1.91

1.81

1.57

1.89

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

1.91

1.30

1.11

2.15

1.55

1.35

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.63

1.71

0.84

1.43

1.45

1.86

0.86

1.73

1.50

1.57

0.64

1.78

1.66

1.90

0.67

1.82

1.89

1.92

0.93

1.67

1.66

2.01

1.00

1.86

1.54

1.79

0.81

1.75

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.08

1.55

1.66

2.15

1.52

1.77

2.36

1.77

1.73

2.34

2.01

1.85

2.38

1.85

1.84

2.17

1.80

1.80

2.21

1.85

1.71

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.02

1.74

1.71

0.93

1.12

1.90

1.53

0.80

0.95

1.42

1.59

0.76

1.25

1.80

1.71

0.57

1.25

1.89

1.68

0.56

1.10

1.90

1.75

0.86

1.31

1.97

1.65

0.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Bac Kan

78 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Tuyen Quang

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Tuyen Quang

5.235.54 5.37

5.80

6.73 6.60

5.045.68 5.59

6.10

6.99 6.79

5.576.26 6.03 6.16

7.236.79

5.34

6.435.97

6.54 6.81 6.78

5.13

6.13

4.99

6.11

6.967.24

5.58 5.635.02

5.69

7.38 7.24

5.696.13

5.396.19

7.04 7.06

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.03

1.62

1.73

1.68

2.07

1.88

1.66

1.65

1.95

1.88

1.67

1.73

1.99

1.58

1.62

1.59

1.99

1.57

1.59

1.64

1.89

1.82

1.52

1.56

1.90

1.63

1.47

1.60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.79

1.78

1.56

1.91

1.88

1.83

1.68

1.98

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.34

1.65

1.40

2.03

1.66

1.32

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.70

1.88

1.06

1.55

1.40

1.78

0.86

1.66

1.48

1.80

1.08

1.75

1.67

1.87

1.12

1.87

1.54

1.74

1.07

1.80

1.61

1.79

0.95

1.75

1.45

1.67

0.95

1.72

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.51

1.80

1.82

2.27

1.64

1.71

2.60

1.87

1.66

2.59

2.09

1.75

2.70

1.93

1.64

2.17

1.96

1.55

2.38

1.73

1.42

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.08

1.79

1.65

1.17

1.06

1.79

1.61

1.13

1.01

1.48

1.71

0.92

1.10

1.55

1.75

0.95

1.22

1.99

1.68

0.69

1.01

1.70

1.45

0.88

1.13

1.74

1.47

0.88

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Tuyen Quang

Provincial Performance in 2017 79

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Lao Cai

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Lao Cai

5.55 5.83 5.57 5.48

6.45 6.235.96 5.91 5.995.62

7.47

6.52

5.11 5.354.82

5.49

6.86 6.78

5.41

6.62

5.53 5.38

6.88 6.79

4.50

5.94 5.99

5.20

6.987.12

5.73 5.89

4.895.34

6.837.12

5.215.88 5.56

6.536.81 7.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.00

1.70

1.61

1.69

1.89

1.88

1.58

1.69

2.03

1.85

1.51

1.73

2.07

1.61

1.43

1.69

2.06

1.66

1.46

1.60

2.15

1.44

1.33

1.60

1.96

1.36

1.23

1.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.66

1.79

1.51

1.85

1.70

1.74

1.46

1.93

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.34

2.00

1.21

2.07

1.55

1.28

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.70

2.00

1.10

1.74

1.30

1.69

0.73

1.62

1.21

1.48

0.85

1.65

1.18

1.63

0.77

1.80

1.48

1.71

0.62

1.68

1.42

1.60

0.78

1.81

1.27

1.58

0.97

1.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.34

1.82

1.72

2.29

1.87

1.73

2.24

2.01

1.70

2.59

2.22

1.81

2.11

1.73

1.51

2.42

1.94

1.55

2.24

2.03

1.56

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.91

1.77

1.46

1.06

1.20

1.93

1.61

0.99

0.84

1.38

1.45

0.83

1.24

1.63

1.56

0.98

1.07

1.72

1.59

0.72

1.27

2.01

1.61

1.07

1.16

2.05

1.64

0.71

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Lao Cai

80 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Dien Bien

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Dien Bien

4.83

5.73 5.465.07

6.716.34

4.59

5.855.21

4.24

7.166.76

4.67

5.80 5.69 5.97

7.056.75

4.57

5.835.31

4.85

6.75 6.66

4.61

5.85 5.725.42

6.746.92

5.556.05

4.76

6.18

7.13 6.92

4.995.63

5.06

6.256.99 6.87

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.04

1.53

1.57

1.72

1.99

1.60

1.56

1.63

1.92

1.65

1.70

1.65

1.72

1.56

1.71

1.66

1.91

1.60

1.65

1.59

1.90

1.81

1.41

1.65

1.78

1.74

1.23

1.60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.74

1.73

1.67

1.86

1.66

1.92

1.76

1.79

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.24

1.66

1.17

2.12

1.16

1.48

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.69

2.06

0.95

1.55

1.63

2.04

0.83

1.67

1.45

1.67

0.75

1.56

1.14

1.51

0.61

1.59

1.59

1.91

0.89

1.58

0.91

1.26

0.48

1.58

1.06

1.68

0.70

1.62

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.37

1.72

1.53

2.56

1.83

1.66

2.63

1.77

1.45

2.53

1.75

1.55

2.39

1.83

1.57

2.71

1.85

1.29

2.57

1.70

1.45

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.95

1.91

1.52

0.61

1.20

2.09

1.56

0.70

0.94

1.64

1.52

0.50

0.84

1.61

1.40

0.72

1.01

1.87

1.32

0.47

0.90

1.83

1.35

0.51

1.07

1.93

1.34

0.49

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Dien Bien

Provincial Performance in 2017 81

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Lai Chau

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Lai Chau

5.17 5.08 5.20 5.31

6.68 6.50

4.56

5.31 5.294.67

6.366.87

4.32

5.234.94 4.99

6.67 6.75

4.58 4.805.18

5.61

6.55 6.68

3.75

4.89

5.625.04

7.126.34

5.09 5.37

4.33

5.40

7.23

6.34

4.865.14

4.10

5.32

6.89 6.79

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.78

1.67

1.59

1.76

1.83

1.58

1.40

1.65

2.01

1.35

1.27

1.71

1.78

1.80

1.45

1.65

2.00

1.75

1.43

1.58

1.96

1.91

1.35

1.64

1.95

1.53

1.41

1.60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.62

1.82

1.59

1.86

1.74

1.92

1.70

1.86

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

1.74

1.16

1.20

1.93

1.30

1.10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.45

1.56

0.82

1.49

1.49

1.63

0.91

1.37

1.26

1.57

0.81

1.40

1.31

1.80

0.92

1.59

1.16

1.55

0.66

1.62

1.03

1.62

0.53

1.48

1.12

1.68

0.95

1.56

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.01

1.49

1.64

2.18

1.68

1.51

1.81

1.63

1.46

1.90

1.66

1.24

2.25

1.68

1.30

2.36

1.67

1.28

1.96

1.70

1.42

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.83

1.65

1.47

0.91

0.92

1.96

1.46

0.75

0.68

1.19

1.38

0.51

0.80

1.51

1.45

0.82

0.86

1.54

1.31

0.61

0.88

1.79

1.36

0.54

1.13

1.81

1.51

0.72

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Lai Chau

82 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Son La

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Son La

6.64 6.545.84

6.68 6.68 6.83

5.275.90 6.15 6.37

7.076.43

5.57 5.42

6.17 6.38

7.22

6.35

4.79

5.66 5.696.03

6.646.24

4.815.24

5.96 5.87

6.766.86

5.48 5.48

4.53

6.13

7.10 6.86

5.35 5.46 5.146.08

6.94 6.67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.95

1.57

1.45

1.69

1.93

1.70

1.50

1.70

2.00

1.65

1.50

1.71

1.68

1.49

1.45

1.63

1.75

1.61

1.38

1.61

1.79

1.58

1.47

1.60

1.95

1.68

1.48

1.72

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.71

1.80

1.61

1.82

1.83

1.84

1.55

1.88

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

1.96

1.77

1.42

2.06

1.05

1.41

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.63

1.86

1.02

1.57

1.66

1.79

1.04

1.64

1.49

1.74

1.00

1.63

1.47

1.81

0.86

1.88

1.84

1.92

0.74

1.88

1.69

1.95

1.05

1.68

2.15

1.90

0.72

1.92

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.04

1.82

1.59

1.97

1.77

1.73

2.23

1.86

1.16

2.10

2.23

1.33

2.26

1.88

1.27

2.56

1.81

1.54

3.14

2.06

1.33

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.00

1.74

1.79

0.82

1.03

1.81

1.62

1.03

0.94

1.56

1.58

0.73

0.88

1.75

1.53

0.63

1.05

2.05

1.81

0.66

1.14

1.86

1.54

0.73

1.46

2.28

1.85

1.05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Son La

Provincial Performance in 2017 83

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Yen Bai

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Yen Bai

5.16

6.055.70 5.77

7.09

5.985.50 5.70 5.44

5.07

7.55

6.325.71

6.05 5.966.32

7.15

6.41

5.19

6.32

5.49 5.39

7.006.67

4.16

4.975.55

4.96

6.87 6.45

5.505.16

4.875.16

7.30

6.45

5.02 5.204.55

5.80

7.05 6.75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.93

1.65

1.51

1.66

1.89

1.67

1.54

1.58

1.77

1.60

1.55

1.53

1.93

1.63

1.47

1.64

1.89

1.64

1.31

1.57

1.90

1.61

1.28

1.53

1.83

1.39

1.27

1.50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.74

1.85

1.64

1.82

1.78

1.93

1.67

1.92

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.30

1.01

1.23

2.31

1.24

1.32

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.47

1.93

0.73

1.67

1.32

1.70

0.72

1.42

1.27

1.51

0.64

1.54

1.35

1.69

0.58

1.78

1.75

1.85

1.08

1.64

1.18

1.63

0.57

1.69

1.44

1.71

0.85

1.77

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.14

1.58

1.48

2.04

1.64

1.48

1.63

1.68

1.65

2.50

2.08

1.74

2.50

2.11

1.44

2.42

1.79

1.49

2.85

1.58

1.62

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.06

1.64

1.46

0.86

1.05

1.92

1.47

1.06

0.83

1.24

1.26

0.83

1.19

1.56

1.65

0.80

1.13

1.84

1.78

0.96

1.13

1.83

1.62

0.93

1.16

1.77

1.43

0.80

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Yen Bai

84 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Hoa Binh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Hoa Binh

6.15 5.99 6.055.72

6.68 6.65

5.55 5.83 5.555.85

6.93 6.85

5.455.90 6.13

5.71

7.24 7.20

5.48

6.505.94

6.27

7.01 7.03

5.74 5.525.87 5.60

6.887.04

5.70 5.96

5.075.53

7.07 7.04

5.80 5.825.30

5.98

7.13 7.24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.97

1.83

1.74

1.70

1.94

1.64

1.72

1.63

1.83

1.84

1.74

1.63

2.05

1.72

1.60

1.66

2.09

1.87

1.60

1.64

1.76

1.89

1.55

1.66

1.76

1.63

1.56

1.69

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.91

1.83

1.46

1.92

1.81

1.90

1.43

1.93

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.23

1.66

1.41

2.08

1.48

1.52

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.65

1.83

0.91

1.60

1.48

1.67

0.76

1.62

1.41

1.65

0.86

1.69

1.61

1.83

1.02

1.81

1.45

1.72

0.80

1.74

1.45

1.78

0.93

1.69

1.63

1.77

0.75

1.57

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.39

1.76

1.67

2.56

1.70

1.69

2.27

1.66

1.60

2.70

2.09

1.71

2.61

1.63

1.66

2.66

1.65

1.52

2.38

1.92

1.69

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.01

1.85

1.77

1.17

1.16

2.02

1.68

0.84

1.09

1.56

1.71

1.39

1.17

1.61

1.79

0.91

1.14

1.78

1.82

0.71

1.09

1.88

1.73

0.85

1.28

2.21

1.61

1.05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Hoa Binh

Provincial Performance in 2017 85

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Thai Nguyen

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Thai Nguyen

5.295.96

5.54 5.49

6.966.29

5.566.04 5.79

5.42

7.026.65

5.57

6.546.10 6.07

6.64 6.53

5.525.82 5.73

5.41

7.176.72

5.375.96

5.385.88

7.18 6.97

6.18 6.23

5.17 5.44

6.98 6.97

6.09 6.20

5.33 5.68

7.16 7.06

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.88

1.68

1.82

1.68

1.79

1.78

1.71

1.70

2.01

1.56

1.72

1.67

1.64

1.52

1.93

1.62

1.78

1.66

1.54

1.54

1.72

1.70

1.74

1.49

1.71

1.43

1.59

1.56

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.86

1.80

1.56

1.94

1.82

1.65

1.62

1.90

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.15

1.80

1.37

2.17

1.83

1.18

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.50

1.71

0.77

1.70

1.40

1.70

0.69

1.65

1.71

1.74

0.74

1.69

1.52

1.52

0.66

1.70

1.70

1.90

0.86

1.61

1.49

1.69

0.68

1.55

1.38

1.71

0.82

1.58

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.50

1.86

1.85

2.39

1.94

1.90

2.48

1.88

1.60

2.30

1.78

1.73

2.86

2.13

1.55

2.60

1.80

1.64

2.39

1.97

1.59

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.14

1.92

1.84

1.19

1.27

1.94

1.87

1.10

1.00

1.47

1.72

1.18

1.08

1.55

1.77

1.12

1.14

1.67

1.86

0.89

1.17

1.78

1.74

0.87

1.19

1.84

1.51

0.75

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Thai Nguyen

86 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Lang Son

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Lang Son

6.006.38

5.866.36

6.75 7.02

5.06

6.07 6.30 6.317.02 7.00

5.43

6.295.76

6.396.75

7.17

4.99

6.62

5.866.27

7.07 7.11

4.24

5.675.33

6.04

6.86 6.81

5.09 5.174.72

5.86

6.76 6.81

5.24 5.284.76

5.82

6.93 6.93

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.83

1.58

1.86

1.64

1.97

1.68

1.78

1.57

1.92

1.59

1.63

1.66

1.94

1.65

1.81

1.71

2.05

1.68

1.81

1.63

1.92

1.68

1.80

1.60

1.96

1.67

1.73

1.66

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.72

1.86

1.65

1.70

1.84

1.55

1.53

1.84

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.09

1.63

1.04

1.93

1.70

1.09

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.61

1.80

0.96

1.45

1.61

1.77

0.85

1.62

1.72

1.93

0.69

1.71

1.66

1.80

0.99

1.81

1.77

1.98

0.87

1.77

1.66

1.91

0.98

1.75

1.64

1.99

0.99

1.75

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.03

1.62

1.63

2.05

1.58

1.53

2.35

1.73

1.59

2.46

2.33

1.83

2.55

2.07

1.67

2.21

2.26

1.60

2.58

2.17

1.64

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.86

1.70

1.52

1.16

1.13

1.72

1.53

0.70

0.87

1.33

1.47

0.59

0.97

1.58

1.65

0.80

1.15

1.86

1.62

0.80

1.02

1.76

1.71

0.57

1.36

2.05

1.77

0.82

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Lang Son

Provincial Performance in 2017 87

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Quang Ninh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Quang Ninh

5.51 5.565.98

4.58

6.60 6.68

5.415.90 5.98

5.43

6.28 6.51

4.55

5.48 5.51 5.35

6.326.69

5.35 5.47 5.44 5.62

6.40 6.56

5.20 5.335.69 5.72

6.79 6.68

4.86 4.94 4.92 4.89

6.94 6.68

5.91 5.85

4.82

6.287.03 6.83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.95

1.61

1.61

1.65

1.82

1.52

1.43

1.66

1.97

1.55

1.47

1.69

1.83

1.53

1.64

1.56

1.83

1.63

1.62

1.61

1.89

1.32

1.70

1.60

1.91

1.62

1.61

1.55

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.73

1.83

1.59

1.88

1.66

1.93

1.59

1.76

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.09

1.21

1.52

2.19

1.71

1.02

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.65

1.97

1.04

1.62

1.04

1.61

0.67

1.56

1.44

1.80

0.88

1.60

1.40

1.78

0.80

1.65

1.32

1.65

0.71

1.68

1.27

1.69

0.79

1.69

1.04

1.40

0.55

1.59

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.12

1.96

1.78

1.75

1.63

1.56

1.93

1.81

1.59

2.12

1.67

1.68

2.05

1.92

1.51

2.30

2.03

1.57

2.23

1.82

1.52

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.15

1.88

1.76

1.13

0.91

1.84

1.51

0.59

1.09

1.49

1.69

0.93

1.00

1.71

1.62

1.02

0.97

1.48

1.55

0.55

1.09

2.00

1.58

0.73

1.21

2.06

1.46

0.78

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Quang Ninh

88 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Bac Giang

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Bac Giang

5.63 5.49 5.444.98

6.846.52

5.74 5.48 5.38

6.256.78 6.58

4.65 4.88 4.63 4.68

6.39 6.56

5.41 5.41 5.47

6.21

7.03 6.89

6.40 6.34

4.29

6.46

7.286.89

6.04 5.81

4.95

6.15

7.16 7.06

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.92

1.69

1.69

1.75

1.94

1.65

1.77

1.65

1.82

1.76

1.62

1.70

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.60

1.70

1.63

1.63

1.76

1.65

1.66

1.52

1.76

1.66

1.45

1.65

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.74

1.85

1.62

1.95

1.73

1.88

1.69

1.98

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.05

1.57

1.33

1.73

1.30

1.27

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.61

1.97

0.98

1.59

1.88

2.08

1.19

1.31

1.70

2.03

0.92

1.56

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.99

1.68

0.69

1.32

1.59

1.86

0.94

1.86

1.12

1.61

0.53

1.71

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.19

1.77

1.86

2.60

1.90

1.84

2.18

1.46

1.77

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.77

1.57

1.54

2.36

1.67

1.45

2.15

1.85

1.49

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.13

1.59

1.85

1.46

1.50

2.00

1.66

1.24

1.13

1.40

1.54

1.34

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.84

1.54

1.44

0.83

1.19

1.99

1.68

0.87

1.12

1.78

1.68

1.04

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Bac Giang

Provincial Performance in 2017 89

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Phu Tho

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Phu Tho

5.675.02

5.87 5.68

6.906.58

5.92 6.11 5.886.43

7.236.59

5.175.83 5.93

6.29

7.086.46

5.04

5.796.15 6.38

6.986.48

5.84 5.85

6.956.65 6.89

6.88

5.61

6.48

5.59

6.677.36

6.88

5.36

6.19

4.97

6.56

7.426.78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.93

1.61

1.58

1.67

2.00

1.60

1.58

1.64

1.92

1.69

1.59

1.68

1.82

1.32

1.64

1.71

1.89

1.28

1.59

1.70

1.82

1.66

1.51

1.59

1.84

1.64

1.52

1.57

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.84

1.91

1.76

1.91

1.86

1.96

1.66

1.89

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.35

1.18

1.44

2.11

2.03

1.45

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.83

2.02

0.95

1.76

1.78

1.99

1.16

1.74

1.75

1.96

1.20

1.74

1.76

1.91

1.02

1.69

1.65

1.92

1.03

1.69

1.65

1.92

1.07

1.80

1.36

1.79

0.88

1.66

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.48

1.83

1.87

2.69

1.91

1.88

2.41

1.69

1.76

2.55

1.77

1.47

2.55

1.71

1.56

2.66

1.92

1.54

2.29

1.45

1.29

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.09

1.77

1.63

0.87

1.14

1.88

1.62

0.97

1.20

1.60

1.67

1.37

1.01

1.54

1.63

0.86

1.01

1.72

1.68

0.75

1.24

1.90

1.80

0.98

1.20

1.89

1.72

0.86

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Phu Tho

90 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Vinh Phuc

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Vinh Phuc

5.46 5.38 5.66 5.63

6.73 6.93

5.46 5.72 5.87 6.14

7.03 6.79

5.265.94

6.73

5.71

7.266.87

5.326.01

6.375.75

7.246.86

4.70

5.635.30

6.126.71

7.12

5.64 5.63

4.17

5.83

7.16 7.12

5.28 5.324.79

6.34

7.16 7.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.88

1.66

1.81

1.66

1.80

1.80

1.74

1.65

1.73

1.88

1.82

1.69

1.79

1.64

1.85

1.59

1.70

1.58

2.03

1.56

1.81

1.61

1.89

1.48

1.63

1.91

1.78

1.61

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.77

1.87

1.61

1.90

1.82

1.84

1.56

1.93

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.04

1.46

1.28

2.04

1.02

1.11

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.77

1.88

1.05

1.63

1.48

1.74

0.94

1.67

1.58

1.89

0.96

1.67

1.51

1.68

0.74

1.82

1.48

1.72

0.71

1.79

1.63

1.82

1.13

1.56

1.50

1.69

0.66

1.77

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.02

1.64

1.65

2.29

1.65

1.68

2.21

1.63

1.80

2.00

2.18

1.82

2.28

1.95

1.71

2.23

1.97

1.52

2.17

1.72

1.48

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.05

1.68

1.62

0.93

1.01

1.80

1.63

1.20

0.92

1.35

1.64

0.79

1.14

1.60

1.54

1.03

1.23

1.71

1.59

0.74

1.19

1.79

1.58

0.90

1.17

2.01

1.44

0.84

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Vinh Phuc

Provincial Performance in 2017 91

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Bac Ninh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Bac Ninh

5.955.30 5.54

4.76

6.87 6.73

5.725.12 5.36 5.62

6.586.92

5.09

5.85 6.11 5.91

6.747.23

5.26 5.225.50 5.34

6.83 7.10

5.74 5.66

6.83

5.68

7.517.63

6.72 6.49

4.63

5.72

7.047.63

6.39 6.29

5.09

6.34

7.34 7.75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.10

1.98

2.01

1.67

2.11

1.71

1.94

1.66

1.92

1.95

2.06

1.69

1.66

1.80

2.01

1.63

1.66

1.99

1.96

1.63

1.65

1.77

1.96

1.53

1.71

1.60

1.92

1.51

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.85

1.90

1.65

1.94

1.83

1.79

1.48

1.94

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.12

1.30

1.66

1.91

1.16

1.56

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.77

1.92

0.82

1.83

1.52

1.64

0.80

1.76

1.51

1.75

0.73

1.69

1.36

1.62

0.64

1.72

1.60

1.64

0.83

1.84

1.41

1.64

0.87

1.70

1.10

1.50

0.52

1.64

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.56

1.86

1.88

2.77

1.86

1.86

2.22

1.53

1.91

2.26

1.44

1.52

2.46

1.82

1.56

2.15

1.52

1.44

2.20

1.70

1.41

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.43

2.03

1.68

1.25

1.37

2.13

1.81

1.41

1.33

1.62

1.68

1.11

1.14

1.69

1.67

0.77

1.05

1.66

1.53

0.84

1.18

1.74

1.78

1.02

1.26

2.09

1.64

0.96

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Bac Ninh

92 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Hai Duong

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Hai Duong

5.68 5.896.27

5.51

6.537.01

5.43 5.59

6.78

5.79

6.99 7.14

5.946.35

6.83

6.08

6.96 6.86

5.255.76

6.07

5.33

6.79 7.02

5.52 5.656.20 5.94

7.19 6.92

5.94 6.145.68

6.18

6.96 6.926.28 6.42

4.94

6.617.18 7.30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.06

1.65

1.97

1.62

1.98

1.72

1.81

1.61

1.80

1.66

1.88

1.57

1.83

1.66

1.95

1.58

1.70

1.69

1.84

1.64

1.78

1.62

2.15

1.60

1.79

1.73

1.97

1.52

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.81

1.81

1.64

1.91

1.72

1.70

1.61

1.93

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.32

0.99

1.63

2.16

1.87

1.65

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.88

1.96

1.08

1.70

1.66

1.81

0.96

1.75

1.48

1.74

0.93

1.79

1.30

1.60

0.63

1.80

1.58

1.78

0.88

1.84

1.36

1.70

0.84

1.89

1.28

1.63

0.73

1.86

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.61

1.91

1.90

2.34

1.94

1.86

2.18

1.63

1.84

2.08

1.93

1.74

2.37

2.12

1.85

2.34

1.72

1.53

2.42

1.72

1.76

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.08

1.73

1.68

1.80

1.30

1.90

1.42

1.32

1.14

1.44

1.60

1.34

1.16

1.70

1.50

0.89

1.21

1.93

1.56

1.23

1.23

1.95

1.50

0.75

1.25

2.04

1.46

0.93

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Hai Duong

Provincial Performance in 2017 93

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Hai Phong

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Hai Phong

5.18 5.314.77 4.60

7.017.33

5.36

6.14

5.384.83

7.32 7.44

4.72

6.06

5.18 5.24

6.857.43

4.75

6.04

4.514.92

7.087.67

4.515.17 4.90

5.52

6.997.06

4.935.41 5.30

4.80

7.30 7.06

5.22

6.11

5.144.36

7.47 7.50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.76

1.67

2.40

1.67

1.69

1.96

2.43

1.73

1.44

1.58

2.39

1.65

1.54

2.03

2.46

1.65

1.50

1.82

2.46

1.64

1.69

1.65

2.46

1.64

1.60

1.59

2.46

1.68

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.82

1.91

1.91

1.84

1.76

1.98

1.77

1.79

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.35

1.72

1.07

2.18

2.08

1.04

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

0.90

1.18

0.63

1.66

0.88

1.43

0.76

1.73

1.34

1.66

0.87

1.64

1.01

1.57

0.62

1.72

1.28

1.53

0.72

1.70

1.05

1.48

0.62

1.68

0.96

1.30

0.72

1.61

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.28

1.98

1.86

1.98

1.61

1.83

1.94

1.53

1.71

2.64

1.90

1.51

2.42

2.06

1.58

2.78

1.89

1.47

2.24

1.81

1.25

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.97

1.77

1.64

0.84

0.94

1.83

1.47

0.69

1.04

1.35

1.53

0.60

1.04

1.63

1.46

0.62

1.02

1.56

1.57

0.57

1.28

1.84

1.59

0.66

1.20

1.81

1.47

0.70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Hai Phong

94 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Hung Yen

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Hung Yen

5.11 5.03 5.15 4.94

6.816.46

5.60 5.79 5.87 5.79

6.72 6.82

5.426.00

5.64 5.79

6.687.25

4.90

5.72 5.665.99

6.527.08

5.16 5.085.59

5.13

6.59

7.49

6.02 5.925.28

5.73

7.157.49

5.86 5.37 5.09 5.15

6.937.46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.82

2.06

1.99

1.60

1.91

1.87

1.97

1.62

1.84

1.82

2.22

1.62

1.88

1.67

1.88

1.65

1.74

2.00

1.89

1.61

1.76

1.60

1.85

1.61

1.62

1.51

1.78

1.55

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.74

1.86

1.48

1.85

1.86

1.69

1.65

1.95

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

1.97

1.86

1.26

2.29

1.49

1.49

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.27

1.50

0.77

1.61

1.45

1.73

0.90

1.65

1.34

1.53

0.66

1.59

1.53

1.83

0.81

1.81

1.48

1.71

0.86

1.74

1.46

1.66

0.90

1.77

1.15

1.46

0.77

1.57

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.10

1.59

1.67

2.39

1.75

1.78

2.12

1.36

1.61

2.33

1.56

1.83

2.38

1.75

1.87

2.60

1.68

1.51

2.07

1.54

1.42

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.06

1.76

1.79

1.25

1.07

1.96

1.72

1.27

0.97

1.34

1.55

1.31

0.94

1.44

1.51

1.02

1.00

1.60

1.66

1.15

1.11

1.80

1.59

1.10

1.11

1.79

1.54

0.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Hung Yen

Provincial Performance in 2017 95

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Thai Binh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Thai Binh

5.335.85

6.42

5.11

6.81 6.636.12

6.77 6.96

6.14

7.10 6.88

6.046.35

7.15

5.67

7.216.88

5.68

6.80

5.616.30

6.81 6.99

5.80 5.94 5.97 5.96

6.806.94

6.24 6.29

4.43

6.367.02 6.94

6.12 5.92 5.746.24

7.07 7.22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.01

1.62

1.83

1.76

2.03

1.99

1.67

1.70

1.96

1.63

1.66

1.69

1.87

1.66

1.80

1.66

1.83

1.70

1.77

1.59

1.87

1.85

1.55

1.60

1.87

1.63

1.55

1.57

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.78

1.77

1.54

1.99

1.83

1.69

1.64

1.86

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.35

1.85

1.54

1.93

1.10

1.39

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.75

1.80

0.97

1.72

1.67

2.00

0.94

1.75

1.59

1.75

0.80

1.82

1.75

1.78

0.94

1.83

1.56

1.58

0.82

1.70

1.61

1.69

0.91

1.93

1.29

1.53

0.68

1.61

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.01

1.84

2.07

2.60

2.01

1.68

2.21

1.90

1.83

2.70

2.25

1.84

2.57

1.98

1.81

2.60

2.22

1.94

2.00

1.95

1.90

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.17

1.84

1.74

1.37

1.16

2.07

1.82

1.19

1.17

1.55

1.64

1.44

1.22

1.78

1.59

1.09

1.39

1.88

1.62

1.15

1.44

2.01

1.59

1.08

1.08

1.85

1.47

0.93

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Thai Binh

96 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Ha Nam

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Ha Nam

5.35 5.576.25

5.58

6.706.225.99

6.726.38 6.49

7.126.61

5.636.10 6.11

5.82

7.18

6.31

5.395.74

6.36 6.186.71 6.92

4.93

5.775.42

5.84

6.926.91

5.53 5.49 5.676.12

7.266.91

5.96 5.656.08 5.83

6.94 7.11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.99

1.61

1.87

1.63

1.83

1.69

1.82

1.61

1.78

1.66

1.80

1.67

1.88

1.62

1.78

1.64

1.73

1.35

1.64

1.59

1.83

1.66

1.48

1.65

1.61

1.60

1.42

1.58

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.85

1.65

1.62

1.82

1.75

1.83

1.74

1.93

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.30

2.33

1.46

2.30

1.91

1.46

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.43

1.84

0.88

1.69

1.56

1.88

0.92

1.77

1.59

1.70

0.89

1.66

1.79

1.81

0.91

1.67

1.47

1.80

0.82

1.73

1.73

1.88

0.95

1.93

1.43

1.64

0.77

1.74

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.18

1.84

1.63

2.12

1.68

1.68

2.33

1.67

1.77

2.21

1.97

1.56

2.48

1.88

1.74

2.71

2.10

1.91

2.29

1.90

1.39

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.12

1.91

1.68

1.25

1.13

1.80

1.60

0.99

1.03

1.42

1.62

0.85

1.14

1.53

1.66

1.06

1.33

1.85

1.68

0.77

1.25

2.08

1.64

1.01

1.16

1.93

1.51

0.75

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ha Nam

Provincial Performance in 2017 97

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Nam Dinh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Nam Dinh

5.38

6.656.30

5.91

7.376.77

5.40

6.68 6.566.21

7.21 7.33

5.02

6.406.07 6.27

7.577.19

5.06

6.826.29 6.20

7.24 7.27

5.36

6.126.57

5.89

7.18 7.00

5.856.33

5.90 5.68

7.10 7.00

5.816.08 6.25 6.51

7.47 7.20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.99

1.80

1.72

1.69

1.89

1.65

1.67

1.69

1.77

1.63

1.92

1.69

1.78

1.75

2.10

1.63

1.75

1.69

2.07

1.68

1.84

1.67

2.05

1.76

1.49

1.71

1.88

1.68

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.89

1.99

1.62

1.97

1.89

1.77

1.52

1.92

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.23

2.33

1.69

2.30

2.06

1.55

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.86

1.88

1.08

1.68

1.44

1.67

0.85

1.72

1.54

1.66

0.81

1.87

1.67

1.68

0.82

2.03

1.59

1.76

1.12

1.79

1.55

1.66

1.04

1.96

1.38

1.63

1.02

1.88

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.21

1.96

1.91

2.42

2.04

1.87

2.39

1.86

1.88

2.76

2.23

1.83

2.60

2.03

1.76

2.62

2.20

1.86

2.65

2.26

1.74

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.06

1.83

1.69

1.23

1.36

1.86

1.41

1.22

1.23

1.46

1.61

1.06

1.10

1.56

1.48

0.92

1.08

1.64

1.50

0.80

1.20

1.86

1.49

0.85

1.20

1.90

1.55

0.73

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Nam Dinh

98 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Ninh Binh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Ninh Binh

4.885.23 5.08 4.93

7.026.46

4.925.63 5.46

6.08

7.116.78

5.34 5.474.99

5.61

7.126.70

4.97

6.135.47

6.31

7.13 6.91

4.965.48 5.67

6.27

7.207.45

5.836.34

4.88

6.06

7.007.45

5.696.23

5.196.10

7.37 7.17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.05

1.66

1.83

1.64

2.07

1.67

1.91

1.64

1.87

1.65

2.25

1.69

1.58

1.64

2.01

1.68

1.62

1.58

1.94

1.56

1.61

1.62

1.95

1.59

1.60

1.63

1.69

1.55

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.91

1.90

1.67

1.88

1.80

1.69

1.59

1.92

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.16

1.56

1.46

2.35

1.22

1.31

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.67

1.87

0.90

1.65

1.59

1.81

0.91

1.76

1.56

1.75

1.11

1.86

1.83

1.88

0.90

1.71

1.32

1.70

0.97

1.61

1.65

1.86

0.93

1.65

1.05

1.50

0.60

1.78

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.37

1.94

1.93

2.53

1.82

1.99

2.28

1.60

1.60

2.73

1.75

1.65

2.39

1.63

1.45

2.41

1.56

1.66

2.23

1.56

1.44

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.97

1.69

1.73

1.29

1.15

1.96

1.63

1.10

0.90

1.25

1.68

1.12

0.95

1.44

1.62

0.96

0.91

1.48

1.61

1.33

1.01

1.46

1.55

0.89

0.97

1.49

1.56

0.86

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ninh Binh

Provincial Performance in 2017 99

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Thanh Hoa

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Thanh Hoa

5.545.96 5.94 5.74

7.266.78

5.396.09

5.63 5.91

7.25 7.03

5.59

6.615.97

6.92 6.73 6.82

5.285.97 5.79

6.146.83 6.87

5.16

5.94 5.746.42

7.18 7.09

5.476.02

4.36

6.05

7.20 7.09

5.305.85

5.25

6.607.28 7.08

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.95

1.64

1.86

1.63

2.01

1.63

1.86

1.68

1.92

1.62

1.87

1.67

1.92

1.53

1.81

1.62

1.88

1.57

1.75

1.63

1.97

1.68

1.77

1.60

1.82

1.82

1.53

1.61

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.87

1.81

1.69

1.90

1.72

1.92

1.68

1.89

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.22

1.71

1.32

2.05

1.06

1.25

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.73

1.97

1.18

1.72

1.66

1.86

0.87

1.66

1.63

1.95

1.05

1.78

1.66

1.78

0.94

1.75

1.95

2.04

1.16

1.77

1.40

1.79

1.03

1.69

1.34

1.79

0.93

1.68

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.33

1.70

1.81

2.56

1.65

1.81

2.33

1.78

1.83

2.36

1.96

1.64

2.80

2.15

1.66

2.48

1.93

1.68

2.64

1.78

1.55

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.97

1.73

1.64

0.96

1.07

1.94

1.65

0.81

1.12

1.55

1.72

0.77

1.09

1.55

1.76

0.88

1.20

1.84

1.72

0.83

1.13

1.91

1.62

0.72

1.23

1.80

1.63

0.88

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Thanh Hoa

100 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Nghe An

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Nghe An

5.415.94

6.32

5.37

6.846.41

5.496.13 6.15

5.79

7.026.55

5.215.77 5.87 5.77

7.226.63

4.99

6.12 6.225.54

7.036.70

5.295.90 6.05

5.51

6.91 6.69

5.885.34

4.985.50

7.256.69

5.63 5.515.02

5.86

7.056.68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.82

1.67

1.55

1.64

1.84

1.62

1.55

1.60

1.77

1.59

1.65

1.67

1.80

1.66

1.64

1.60

1.83

1.77

1.44

1.59

1.79

1.58

1.59

1.59

1.83

1.66

1.38

1.54

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.88

1.85

1.45

1.88

1.92

1.82

1.56

1.95

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.21

1.47

1.34

2.19

1.44

1.35

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.50

1.73

1.03

1.60

1.36

1.75

0.73

1.66

1.44

1.62

0.78

1.67

1.40

1.62

0.80

1.71

1.54

1.66

0.82

1.75

1.50

1.69

0.84

1.76

1.21

1.66

0.79

1.71

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.17

1.70

1.64

1.97

1.71

1.67

2.32

1.85

1.73

2.31

2.00

1.81

2.33

1.80

1.65

2.37

2.09

1.66

2.43

1.85

1.66

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.00

1.85

1.85

0.94

1.19

1.97

1.61

1.12

1.01

1.50

1.67

1.11

1.00

1.62

1.65

0.72

1.03

1.71

1.67

0.79

1.16

1.90

1.68

0.75

1.20

1.93

1.57

0.71

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Nghe An

Provincial Performance in 2017 101

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Ha Tinh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Ha Tinh

5.63

6.68 6.515.92

7.156.85

5.97 6.18 6.00 5.87

7.136.55

5.796.25

6.826.34

7.51

6.57

5.67 5.81 5.72

6.477.17

6.726.44

7.24 7.51

6.677.30 7.17

6.816.14

4.91

6.72

7.517.17

6.41 6.36

4.65

6.567.11 7.11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.09

1.72

1.63

1.67

2.17

1.72

1.67

1.66

2.04

1.73

1.69

1.71

1.85

1.61

1.64

1.62

1.87

1.56

1.58

1.55

1.78

1.55

1.63

1.59

2.06

1.47

1.68

1.65

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.80

1.87

1.54

1.90

1.99

1.83

1.71

1.98

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

1.79

1.21

1.65

2.14

1.13

1.63

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.75

2.00

1.13

1.68

1.97

2.02

1.01

1.73

1.80

2.04

1.02

1.81

1.83

1.81

0.90

1.92

1.82

1.89

0.80

1.84

1.54

1.76

0.73

1.84

1.55

1.63

0.77

1.97

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.54

1.87

1.95

2.43

1.89

1.82

2.89

2.26

2.09

2.37

1.71

1.73

2.60

2.08

1.57

2.39

2.19

1.61

2.74

2.13

1.81

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.47

1.94

1.75

1.25

1.48

2.13

1.78

1.42

1.48

1.84

1.77

1.35

1.14

1.77

1.71

1.05

1.37

1.92

1.68

0.82

1.38

2.05

1.56

0.98

1.14

2.07

1.58

0.83

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ha Tinh

102 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Quang Binh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Quang Binh

6.29 6.35 6.57 6.45

7.47 7.22

5.71

6.95 6.89

6.06

7.44 7.57

6.486.87 6.82

6.44

7.57 7.53

5.27

6.196.55 6.64

7.33 7.26

4.875.28

6.14 5.94

7.21 7.12

6.16 6.27

4.90

6.28

7.677.12

5.816.47

5.42

7.157.45 7.23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.13

1.71

1.74

1.66

2.13

1.64

1.67

1.69

2.04

1.61

1.91

1.56

1.91

1.60

2.17

1.57

2.01

1.77

2.21

1.54

1.98

1.85

2.18

1.56

1.90

1.71

2.07

1.54

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.91

1.83

1.67

2.04

2.06

1.84

1.68

2.09

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.24

1.45

1.72

2.03

1.36

1.52

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

2.03

2.08

1.19

1.85

1.72

1.97

0.82

1.78

1.67

1.75

0.76

1.77

1.76

2.00

0.95

1.93

1.83

1.73

1.10

1.79

1.63

1.67

0.77

1.99

1.80

1.88

0.99

1.78

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.48

1.95

2.05

2.58

1.84

1.86

2.08

1.62

1.58

2.35

1.96

1.87

2.56

2.47

1.85

2.79

2.24

1.92

2.40

2.15

1.80

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.11

1.79

1.79

1.12

1.38

1.98

1.69

1.11

1.14

1.36

1.67

0.70

1.11

1.61

1.61

0.94

1.59

1.94

1.66

1.29

1.27

1.92

1.65

0.87

1.49

2.09

1.66

1.06

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Quang Binh

Provincial Performance in 2017 103

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Quang Tri

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Quang Tri

5.88 6.10

6.98

5.79

7.31 7.04

5.17

6.886.42 6.69

7.03 7.16

5.52

6.57 6.636.12

7.797.12

5.89

6.68 6.67 6.516.98 7.12

5.29

6.026.41 6.69 6.74

7.02

5.97 6.085.48

6.567.11 7.02

5.615.92

5.516.32

6.897.38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.02

1.66

2.04

1.65

2.01

1.27

1.88

1.71

2.02

1.65

1.71

1.63

1.96

1.65

1.92

1.59

1.97

1.63

1.93

1.59

1.87

1.71

1.95

1.63

1.92

1.66

1.88

1.58

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.76

1.62

1.60

1.90

1.82

1.68

1.68

1.93

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.34

1.88

1.30

2.30

1.79

1.39

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.68

1.99

0.97

1.69

1.82

2.03

0.96

1.75

1.85

2.06

0.96

1.82

1.71

1.88

1.00

1.92

1.86

1.93

0.80

1.53

1.94

1.94

0.86

1.95

1.52

1.76

0.75

1.77

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.12

1.82

1.98

2.33

1.85

1.90

2.31

1.95

1.76

2.66

2.23

1.79

2.69

1.97

1.91

2.78

2.17

1.92

2.14

2.17

1.78

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.17

1.77

1.70

0.97

1.28

2.06

1.63

0.99

1.17

1.63

1.52

0.97

1.41

1.82

1.69

0.97

1.37

1.86

1.56

0.73

1.08

1.87

1.61

0.62

1.33

2.16

1.70

0.70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Quang Tri

104 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Thua Thien-Hue

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Thua Thien-Hue

5.28 5.35 5.335.71

6.646.97

5.155.66 5.54

6.12

7.347.05

5.17

6.07

5.285.82

6.727.29

5.15

6.02 5.786.12

6.677.29

4.885.40 5.58

6.026.71

7.36

5.10 5.14 5.245.61

6.757.36

5.185.50

4.74

6.21

7.08 7.32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.97

1.46

2.22

1.67

1.99

1.56

2.23

1.72

1.94

1.37

2.36

1.68

1.92

1.34

2.33

1.69

1.87

1.56

2.20

1.66

1.75

1.58

2.03

1.68

1.81

1.65

1.79

1.72

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.82

1.72

1.66

1.88

1.76

1.63

1.44

1.92

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.23

1.32

1.19

2.08

2.07

1.09

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.60

1.89

1.10

1.62

1.31

1.78

0.76

1.76

1.49

1.82

0.92

1.78

1.48

1.88

0.94

1.81

1.45

1.87

0.82

1.68

1.49

1.99

0.83

1.81

1.39

1.86

0.75

1.71

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.22

1.50

1.78

2.16

1.54

1.44

2.31

1.62

1.46

2.45

1.98

1.59

2.70

1.72

1.65

2.36

1.72

1.58

2.29

1.62

1.45

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.00

1.73

1.62

0.82

1.13

1.77

1.42

0.77

0.93

1.54

1.55

0.85

1.13

1.72

1.64

0.66

1.14

1.91

1.57

0.54

1.03

1.76

1.59

0.77

1.16

1.94

1.46

0.72

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Thua Thien Hue

Provincial Performance in 2017 105

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Da Nang

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Da Nang

5.28 5.465.79

6.08

7.33 7.43

5.476.10 6.04

6.827.47 7.65

5.23

6.67

5.946.33

7.52 7.37

4.83

6.16 6.045.63

7.61 7.73

5.075.48

5.85 5.58

7.187.53

5.27

6.02 5.82 6.10

7.34 7.53

5.165.51

4.71

6.967.41 7.45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.00

1.41

2.38

1.67

2.03

2.02

2.35

1.63

1.82

1.72

2.36

1.63

2.00

1.65

2.44

1.64

1.97

1.29

2.43

1.67

1.89

1.71

2.41

1.65

1.92

1.70

2.27

1.54

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.78

1.96

1.72

1.95

2.02

1.88

1.56

1.87

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.39

1.12

1.21

2.56

2.04

1.21

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.79

2.09

1.12

1.96

1.51

1.80

0.87

1.92

1.27

1.70

0.90

1.71

1.17

1.63

0.77

2.07

1.53

1.88

0.94

1.99

1.73

2.08

0.99

2.02

1.46

1.88

1.02

1.71

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.26

1.68

1.57

2.21

1.74

2.07

1.76

2.03

1.69

2.37

1.98

1.81

2.83

2.07

1.77

2.76

1.79

1.56

2.12

1.75

1.58

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.06

1.83

1.62

0.66

1.01

1.95

1.58

0.73

1.13

1.50

1.70

0.74

1.05

1.45

1.65

0.68

1.26

1.62

1.57

0.78

1.29

1.83

1.48

0.86

1.15

1.81

1.45

0.86

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Da Nang

106 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Quang Nam

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Quang Nam

5.335.72

5.41

6.29 6.456.84

5.535.82 5.69

6.517.01 6.96

5.81 6.01 5.846.38

6.78 6.97

4.985.60 5.77

6.54 6.566.95

5.865.54 5.52

6.51 6.426.67

5.915.44

5.12

5.92

6.82 6.675.97 5.46

4.98

6.736.98 6.96

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.08

1.65

1.58

1.64

2.03

1.65

1.50

1.61

2.07

1.37

1.58

1.64

2.11

1.61

1.53

1.70

2.12

1.64

1.54

1.67

2.06

1.70

1.53

1.67

2.10

1.66

1.41

1.66

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.66

1.91

1.49

1.92

1.66

1.80

1.48

1.88

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.19

1.59

1.20

2.29

1.55

1.28

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.76

2.04

1.15

1.78

1.56

1.85

0.87

1.64

1.67

1.99

0.99

1.86

1.76

1.96

1.03

1.79

1.66

1.87

1.04

1.82

1.60

1.92

1.21

1.77

1.55

1.85

1.21

1.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.01

1.71

1.74

1.82

1.89

1.73

2.31

1.60

1.64

2.25

1.75

1.60

2.46

1.94

1.61

2.45

1.75

1.62

2.21

1.82

1.69

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.19

1.88

1.76

1.14

1.32

1.97

1.66

0.97

1.30

1.81

1.74

1.01

1.05

1.59

1.59

0.76

1.12

1.97

1.73

0.99

1.11

2.05

1.64

0.74

1.04

1.90

1.66

0.73

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Quang Nam

Provincial Performance in 2017 107

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Quang Ngai

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Quang Ngai

5.05 5.31 5.58 5.35

6.41 6.31

5.20

5.99 5.75 5.84

6.86 6.59

5.385.77 5.53 5.34

6.256.80

5.06

6.656.18

6.80 6.767.19

4.084.60

5.39 5.385.90

6.41

5.345.89 5.97 5.74

7.44

6.41

4.945.26 5.45

6.627.32

6.65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.01

1.46

1.51

1.66

2.03

1.22

1.50

1.68

1.72

1.39

1.69

1.62

2.04

1.58

1.85

1.72

1.83

1.60

1.70

1.67

1.77

1.56

1.59

1.67

1.74

1.44

1.51

1.62

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.80

1.86

1.71

1.96

1.89

1.90

1.69

1.96

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.40

1.75

1.31

2.50

2.20

1.27

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.83

2.02

1.02

1.75

1.64

1.89

0.99

1.22

1.23

1.63

0.87

1.65

1.85

1.94

1.10

1.92

1.33

1.64

0.93

1.44

1.35

1.59

1.05

1.86

1.27

1.66

0.73

1.70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.86

1.65

1.76

2.44

1.63

1.82

1.67

1.34

1.60

2.73

2.06

1.87

2.40

1.87

1.50

2.16

2.08

1.75

1.68

2.07

1.55

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.01

1.59

1.38

0.96

1.02

1.94

1.53

0.85

0.77

1.28

1.32

0.71

1.08

1.74

1.44

0.81

1.13

1.80

1.53

0.92

1.16

1.74

1.49

0.81

1.05

1.89

1.34

0.76

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Quang Ngai

108 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Binh Dinh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Binh Dinh

5.88 5.686.00

6.95 6.90 7.01

6.19 6.12 6.306.99 7.11 7.11

5.596.03

5.67

6.507.08 7.33

5.776.30

5.936.57 6.70

7.35

4.80

5.655.94 6.11

6.696.90

5.606.11

4.93

6.647.01 6.90

5.51 5.725.36

7.19 7.25 7.31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.08

1.71

1.85

1.68

1.95

1.68

1.86

1.74

1.84

1.59

1.79

1.68

1.97

1.61

2.09

1.67

2.00

1.62

2.01

1.70

2.03

1.71

1.70

1.67

1.95

1.70

1.68

1.69

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.88

1.82

1.61

1.94

1.76

1.83

1.53

1.88

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.26

1.61

1.49

2.39

1.17

1.37

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.98

2.09

1.30

1.81

1.83

1.96

1.09

1.76

1.45

1.90

0.99

1.78

1.83

1.90

1.00

1.84

1.82

1.90

1.20

1.59

1.77

1.94

1.25

2.02

1.75

2.02

1.20

1.98

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.44

1.63

1.65

2.38

1.82

1.90

2.22

1.54

1.88

2.57

1.87

1.85

2.48

1.94

1.61

2.50

1.89

1.73

2.32

1.58

1.77

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.97

1.66

1.60

1.28

1.06

1.94

1.49

1.11

1.03

1.43

1.44

0.90

1.10

1.77

1.70

1.20

1.20

1.84

1.46

1.09

1.34

2.02

1.69

1.14

1.27

2.22

1.65

0.74

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Binh Dinh

Provincial Performance in 2017 109

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Phu Yen

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Phu Yen

4.76 5.02 5.21 5.09

6.586.26

4.54

6.075.59

6.296.63 6.68

5.095.58 5.84

6.296.73 6.61

4.45

5.185.72

5.28

6.437.07

4.645.21 5.32 5.28

6.28

7.05

4.66

5.61

4.64

6.11

7.04 7.05

5.095.52 5.30

6.23

7.12 7.01

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.06

1.69

1.64

1.62

1.92

1.50

1.64

1.63

1.87

1.76

1.77

1.64

1.54

1.79

2.09

1.66

1.76

1.34

1.89

1.62

1.78

1.69

1.57

1.64

1.60

1.63

1.48

1.56

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.70

1.93

1.58

1.91

1.63

1.85

1.74

1.82

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.09

1.88

1.33

2.09

1.31

1.23

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.62

2.00

1.03

1.59

1.55

1.83

1.03

1.70

1.23

1.57

0.84

1.63

1.25

1.71

0.84

1.48

1.60

1.84

1.07

1.78

1.56

1.87

1.03

1.83

1.09

1.62

0.63

1.75

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.01

1.62

1.89

2.24

1.63

1.73

1.98

1.54

1.70

2.13

1.58

1.47

2.34

1.59

1.65

2.59

1.70

1.78

1.94

1.55

1.53

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.98

1.63

1.54

0.94

0.92

1.63

1.39

0.71

0.93

1.47

1.33

0.90

0.88

1.40

1.31

0.85

1.18

1.81

1.29

0.81

0.99

1.61

1.44

0.49

1.04

1.71

1.38

0.62

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Phu Yen

110 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Khanh Hoa

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Khanh Hoa

5.35 5.53 5.28 5.26

6.43 6.66

4.634.98

4.67 4.49

6.43 6.63

4.46

5.52 5.596.09

6.98 7.16

4.645.18 5.43 5.33

6.71 6.81

4.47 4.705.20

5.55

6.546.94

4.83 4.944.44

5.99

6.95 6.94

5.21 5.424.84

5.98

6.89 7.23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.97

1.62

2.00

1.64

1.84

1.81

1.94

1.49

1.87

1.61

1.94

1.52

1.82

1.55

1.82

1.62

1.89

1.82

1.83

1.63

1.83

1.54

1.67

1.58

1.73

1.55

1.82

1.56

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.76

1.77

1.53

1.83

1.59

1.93

1.62

1.82

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.34

1.12

1.38

2.25

0.95

1.24

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.58

1.87

0.95

1.57

1.47

1.77

1.08

1.67

1.39

1.64

0.87

1.65

1.28

1.66

0.87

1.53

1.64

1.83

0.95

1.66

0.95

1.37

0.56

1.61

1.27

1.59

0.74

1.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.10

1.57

1.75

1.67

1.53

1.74

1.52

1.58

1.59

1.91

1.62

1.65

2.04

1.85

1.63

1.92

1.62

1.44

2.29

1.79

1.45

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.91

1.68

1.55

1.07

0.92

1.77

1.46

0.68

0.98

1.56

1.36

0.56

0.81

1.71

1.35

0.77

0.93

1.65

1.41

0.47

0.94

1.73

1.28

0.70

1.03

1.94

1.54

0.85

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Khanh Hoa

Provincial Performance in 2017 111

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Ninh Thuan

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Ninh Thuan

5.064.64

5.525.13

7.06 6.92

4.99 5.23 5.314.71

6.777.33

4.57

5.57 5.63 5.72

6.647.19

3.96

5.08 5.04

6.216.71

7.35

4.43 4.495.17

5.996.42

7.37

5.485.81

4.69

6.50

7.32 7.37

5.085.49

5.14

6.647.30 7.28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.03

1.59

1.95

1.70

2.07

1.67

2.00

1.69

1.99

1.59

2.08

1.70

1.97

1.98

1.83

1.58

1.98

1.72

1.89

1.61

1.93

1.83

2.05

1.53

1.91

1.56

1.89

1.57

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.71

2.03

1.62

1.94

1.81

1.81

1.77

1.92

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.09

1.81

1.25

2.28

1.14

1.28

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.83

2.04

1.03

1.73

1.74

1.92

1.10

1.73

1.51

1.80

1.06

1.61

1.62

1.87

1.12

1.60

1.50

1.79

0.82

1.61

1.13

1.65

0.60

1.33

1.05

1.71

0.65

1.72

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.13

1.67

1.69

2.13

1.90

1.78

1.75

1.24

1.50

1.92

1.54

1.62

2.21

1.80

1.57

1.79

1.71

1.72

1.64

1.52

1.48

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.97

1.83

1.40

0.88

1.04

1.96

1.50

0.97

0.81

1.49

1.39

0.74

0.63

1.41

1.22

0.71

0.78

1.73

1.32

0.74

0.93

1.79

1.45

0.81

1.01

1.90

1.45

0.70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ninh Thuan

112 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Binh Thuan

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Binh Thuan

4.324.88

5.445.82

6.66 6.48

4.984.58

5.465.97

6.87 6.99

4.49

5.53 5.37

6.20

7.39 7.36

4.67

5.735.29

6.23

7.107.50

4.73 4.71

5.57 5.58

6.947.13

5.02 5.10 5.20 5.41

7.07 7.13

4.865.12

4.56

6.357.06 6.88

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.83

1.64

1.87

1.53

1.81

1.64

1.90

1.62

1.70

1.66

2.23

1.54

1.79

1.83

2.27

1.61

1.89

1.68

2.24

1.55

1.69

1.66

2.14

1.49

1.65

1.72

1.89

1.22

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.79

1.79

1.65

1.83

1.72

1.83

1.71

1.81

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.13

1.12

1.32

2.08

1.87

1.25

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.57

2.07

1.04

1.67

1.40

1.70

0.93

1.38

1.31

1.75

0.96

1.57

1.59

1.86

1.03

1.75

1.51

1.78

1.11

1.80

1.42

1.83

1.05

1.67

1.37

1.86

1.00

1.58

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.00

1.56

1.56

1.88

1.65

1.57

1.79

1.40

1.52

2.24

1.92

1.57

2.16

1.75

1.62

1.51

1.46

1.61

1.71

1.62

1.54

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.89

1.71

1.29

0.97

1.00

1.74

1.44

0.84

0.85

1.55

1.47

0.86

0.94

1.69

1.45

0.60

0.84

1.70

1.37

0.58

1.09

1.73

1.46

0.70

0.96

1.67

1.26

0.42

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Binh Thuan

Provincial Performance in 2017 113

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Kon Tum

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Kon Tum

5.26 5.165.63

5.33

7.156.74

5.345.69 5.70

5.18

7.416.94

5.36 5.30 5.124.74

7.06 6.82

4.755.41 5.52

5.13

7.026.70

4.384.92

5.755.11

6.37

6.78

5.19 5.15 5.41 5.37

6.80 6.78

5.19 5.09 5.40 5.43

7.11 6.90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.00

1.62

1.78

1.50

1.99

1.65

1.74

1.50

1.82

1.76

1.67

1.54

1.83

1.62

1.72

1.52

1.77

1.92

1.59

1.54

1.83

2.06

1.55

1.50

1.85

1.68

1.67

1.53

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.90

1.80

1.56

1.85

1.61

1.77

1.60

1.83

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.25

2.00

1.15

2.26

1.98

1.17

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.39

1.63

0.83

1.58

1.22

1.69

0.76

1.70

1.30

1.52

0.71

1.57

1.23

1.54

0.78

1.58

1.02

1.52

0.60

1.60

1.23

1.62

0.87

1.45

1.20

1.71

0.76

1.66

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.76

1.73

1.60

1.82

1.72

1.62

1.78

1.62

1.52

2.14

1.63

1.64

2.16

1.59

1.55

2.30

1.86

1.53

2.01

1.88

1.27

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.01

1.79

1.53

0.85

0.97

1.86

1.53

0.82

0.84

1.39

1.41

0.74

0.98

1.49

1.44

0.84

0.95

1.72

1.58

1.12

1.13

1.96

1.55

0.69

1.14

1.93

1.36

0.83

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Kon Tum

114 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Gia Lai

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Gia Lai

5.476.00

5.44 5.65

7.08

6.32

5.26

6.12 5.86 6.10

7.25

6.27

5.455.86 5.81

6.837.18

6.185.51 5.35

5.74 5.90

7.31

6.45

4.845.33 5.48 5.47

6.90 6.51

5.475.09 4.85

5.44

6.966.51

5.29 5.47

4.28

5.71

6.99 6.80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.79

1.69

1.69

1.63

1.71

1.64

1.67

1.64

1.59

1.59

1.75

1.58

1.64

1.63

1.61

1.57

1.55

1.60

1.46

1.58

1.65

1.63

1.47

1.53

1.62

1.65

1.45

1.60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.69

1.87

1.66

1.78

1.79

1.75

1.65

1.77

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.09

0.95

1.24

2.00

1.78

1.07

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.49

1.82

0.86

1.54

1.25

1.81

0.76

1.62

1.39

1.77

0.74

1.57

1.50

1.80

0.88

1.71

1.67

2.01

1.41

1.73

1.56

1.83

1.05

1.67

1.29

1.72

0.79

1.85

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.08

1.53

1.86

2.08

1.39

1.62

2.01

1.66

1.66

1.98

1.61

1.75

2.31

1.90

1.64

2.31

2.12

1.70

2.53

1.84

1.63

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.96

1.71

1.56

1.05

1.23

1.84

1.55

0.85

1.08

1.43

1.42

0.91

1.13

1.70

1.68

1.00

1.04

1.66

1.73

1.01

1.19

1.93

1.56

0.59

1.28

1.87

1.75

0.58

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Gia Lai

Provincial Performance in 2017 115

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Dak Lak

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Dak Lak

5.105.80 5.53

5.03

7.016.57

4.17

4.925.47

5.18

7.026.69

4.72

5.905.56

6.25

7.16 6.92

4.37

6.39

5.26

6.166.85 6.64

4.605.28 5.44

5.07

7.027.13

5.795.49

4.83

5.60

7.17 7.13

5.21 5.174.82 5.20

7.24 7.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.99

1.63

1.74

1.65

1.92

1.59

1.69

1.58

1.90

1.87

1.69

1.67

2.00

1.51

1.56

1.58

1.96

1.74

1.65

1.56

1.93

1.58

1.59

1.59

1.77

1.65

1.58

1.56

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.84

1.91

1.67

1.82

1.80

1.78

1.68

1.90

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.08

1.49

1.25

2.30

1.36

1.17

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.31

1.53

0.74

1.62

1.46

1.70

0.78

1.66

1.23

1.59

0.58

1.67

1.56

1.77

1.12

1.71

1.57

1.82

1.04

1.82

1.24

1.63

0.71

1.60

1.17

1.50

0.69

1.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.90

1.53

1.74

2.12

1.72

1.66

1.89

1.61

1.78

2.38

2.28

1.74

2.40

1.82

1.68

2.00

1.66

1.26

2.43

1.90

1.47

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.96

1.71

1.52

1.02

1.05

2.10

1.61

1.02

0.86

1.51

1.49

0.73

0.83

1.52

1.43

0.59

0.93

1.80

1.48

0.51

0.75

1.57

1.37

0.49

1.10

1.89

1.52

0.59

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Dak Lak

116 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Dak Nong

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Dak Nong

5.73 5.895.55 5.75

7.20

5.685.51 5.67 5.74 5.46

7.31

5.955.29

6.24 6.04 5.80

7.126.47

5.646.02

5.645.99

7.076.57

4.84 4.92 5.01

5.946.38 6.32

5.43 5.615.21

5.94

6.786.32

5.255.61

4.405.09

7.18 7.05

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.99

1.60

1.79

1.67

1.93

1.59

1.83

1.58

1.72

1.16

1.86

1.58

1.75

1.28

1.94

1.60

1.71

1.41

1.74

1.60

1.70

1.16

1.55

1.55

1.54

0.94

1.61

1.60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.78

1.78

1.68

1.94

1.60

1.91

1.49

1.79

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.15

1.13

1.12

2.27

1.71

1.23

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.24

1.59

0.63

1.63

1.58

1.77

0.90

1.68

1.37

1.77

0.94

1.86

1.48

1.71

0.91

1.88

1.39

1.85

0.78

1.78

1.23

1.70

0.70

1.83

1.54

1.65

0.79

1.78

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.21

1.76

1.64

2.12

1.85

1.64

1.76

1.50

1.66

2.51

1.91

1.61

2.52

2.19

1.54

2.19

1.85

1.64

2.44

2.01

1.44

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.00

1.72

1.69

0.84

1.05

1.87

1.69

0.83

1.07

1.51

1.62

0.63

1.16

1.55

1.85

1.08

1.13

1.77

1.61

0.78

1.15

1.80

1.76

0.81

1.19

1.92

1.71

0.90

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Dak Nong

Provincial Performance in 2017 117

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Lam Dong

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Lam Dong

5.254.60

5.535.03

7.176.63

5.56 5.56 5.605.94

7.12 6.99

5.17 5.18 5.165.77

7.266.94

5.065.75 5.61

6.246.74

7.13

4.68 4.925.57

5.22

6.767.07

5.39 5.32 5.175.50

6.80 7.07

5.58 5.334.51

5.96

6.81 7.01

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.85

1.66

1.85

1.64

1.87

1.65

1.83

1.66

1.88

1.58

1.99

1.62

1.62

1.62

2.18

1.70

1.58

1.61

2.17

1.58

1.56

1.63

2.19

1.61

1.47

1.65

1.98

1.54

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.69

1.73

1.55

1.85

1.71

1.84

1.47

1.77

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.16

1.12

1.24

2.24

1.67

1.25

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.51

1.80

0.96

1.70

1.28

1.66

0.92

1.64

1.22

1.57

0.81

1.61

1.63

1.84

0.96

1.82

1.41

1.85

0.79

1.73

1.50

1.80

0.87

1.77

1.17

1.58

0.54

1.73

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.01

1.67

1.65

1.90

1.69

1.73

1.78

1.58

1.56

2.26

1.83

1.66

1.88

1.73

1.56

2.10

1.99

1.47

1.58

1.60

1.42

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.11

1.89

1.43

1.15

1.09

2.04

1.48

0.78

0.95

1.53

1.43

0.76

1.00

1.73

1.52

0.81

1.04

1.84

1.55

0.74

1.15

1.81

1.52

1.08

1.09

1.96

1.39

0.81

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Lam Dong

118 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Binh Phuoc

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Binh Phuoc

5.436.02 5.85

5.51

7.13

5.926.036.55 6.31 6.08

6.906.37

5.215.81 5.61 5.58

7.05

6.12

4.95

5.715.28

5.89

7.14

6.01

4.76

5.65 5.70 5.67

7.286.32

5.345.94

4.825.49

7.05

6.32

5.275.93

5.435.94

7.556.88

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.85

1.62

1.82

1.58

1.76

1.67

1.86

1.61

1.56

1.21

1.92

1.63

1.63

1.26

1.55

1.56

1.58

1.34

1.59

1.62

1.63

1.54

1.64

1.58

1.49

1.26

1.54

1.62

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.89

1.83

1.72

2.10

1.70

1.79

1.69

1.87

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.49

1.43

1.52

2.21

1.19

1.42

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.47

1.82

0.93

1.72

1.29

1.64

0.77

1.79

1.36

1.74

0.77

1.80

1.49

1.87

0.91

1.63

1.40

1.59

0.76

1.83

1.63

1.75

0.82

1.88

1.37

1.63

0.88

1.64

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.34

1.92

1.68

2.40

2.11

1.43

2.28

1.81

1.56

2.37

1.78

1.56

2.35

1.88

1.58

2.39

2.39

1.77

2.39

2.11

1.52

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.99

1.81

1.61

0.86

1.18

1.79

1.52

0.85

0.99

1.46

1.52

0.79

1.00

1.71

1.52

0.71

0.96

1.77

1.63

0.85

1.35

2.05

1.62

1.01

1.12

1.83

1.47

1.01

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Binh Phuoc

Provincial Performance in 2017 119

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Tay Ninh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Tay Ninh

4.40 4.635.19 5.24

6.726.37

5.12 5.21 5.11

6.046.66

5.92

4.79

5.655.16

6.30 6.50 6.50

4.435.08

5.786.43

7.026.35

4.84 4.74

5.61

6.57 6.807.18

5.255.61 5.33

6.517.00 7.18

4.925.59 5.40

6.897.39 7.15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.87

1.77

1.83

1.67

1.91

1.69

1.88

1.69

1.82

1.63

2.01

1.72

1.69

1.36

1.60

1.69

1.60

1.68

1.50

1.71

1.66

1.12

1.49

1.64

1.68

1.65

1.40

1.64

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.70

1.89

1.82

1.98

1.69

1.67

1.77

1.87

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.17

1.97

1.26

2.35

1.64

1.34

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.85

2.04

1.30

1.70

1.63

1.94

1.27

1.67

1.57

1.89

1.37

1.75

1.57

1.91

1.13

1.82

1.72

2.00

1.10

1.48

1.57

1.80

1.12

1.55

1.33

1.61

1.05

1.25

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.07

1.61

1.90

2.08

1.71

1.82

1.58

1.28

1.88

1.84

1.60

1.63

2.17

1.71

1.77

1.91

1.67

1.63

1.70

1.35

1.58

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.76

1.76

1.36

1.04

1.01

1.92

1.45

0.87

0.93

1.69

1.48

0.74

0.94

1.71

1.10

0.67

1.01

1.74

1.35

0.69

1.00

1.78

1.34

1.00

0.82

1.56

1.22

0.80

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Tay Ninh

120 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Binh Duong

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Binh Duong

5.085.48 5.39

7.18 7.156.85

5.516.18

5.43

6.416.72

7.24

5.20

6.135.80

6.85 7.01 7.01

5.12

6.125.74

7.23 7.057.64

4.23

5.394.80 4.87

6.726.87

4.47

5.28

4.45 4.31

6.95 6.87

4.33

5.545.05 4.99

6.976.61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.69

1.23

2.05

1.63

1.64

1.72

2.06

1.71

1.43

1.59

2.22

1.62

1.93

1.79

2.26

1.66

1.87

1.61

1.97

1.56

1.80

1.85

2.04

1.55

1.73

1.63

1.81

1.69

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.63

1.78

1.72

1.84

1.64

1.82

1.65

1.84

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.14

1.66

1.25

2.18

1.21

1.06

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.16

1.53

0.70

1.61

0.70

1.32

0.63

1.65

0.98

1.55

0.76

1.57

1.87

2.10

1.49

1.77

1.65

1.97

1.50

1.74

1.44

1.85

1.09

2.04

1.82

2.09

1.43

1.85

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.09

1.71

1.74

2.13

1.57

1.58

2.44

1.65

1.30

2.47

1.65

1.99

2.51

1.88

1.75

2.46

1.98

1.74

2.09

1.86

1.53

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.70

1.63

1.27

0.73

0.81

1.60

1.27

0.79

0.82

1.25

1.44

0.72

1.06

1.92

1.38

0.75

1.07

1.96

1.42

0.75

1.05

1.93

1.46

1.07

1.07

1.75

1.24

1.03

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Binh Duong

Provincial Performance in 2017 121

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Dong Nai

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Dong Nai

5.46 5.39 5.145.87

7.146.66

4.73 5.00 5.145.44

6.74 6.92

5.48 5.705.28 5.54

6.92 6.77

4.755.42 5.53 5.44

7.276.81

4.785.08

5.605.90

6.77

7.50

5.035.65

4.24

5.91

7.187.50

5.295.69

5.21

6.35

7.436.93

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.88

1.65

1.80

1.60

1.91

1.60

1.73

1.61

1.81

1.82

2.21

1.66

1.68

1.57

1.96

1.61

1.72

1.60

1.86

1.58

1.70

1.83

1.90

1.49

1.62

1.72

1.78

1.54

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.93

1.86

1.67

1.97

1.85

1.85

1.56

1.92

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.26

1.72

1.23

2.03

0.97

1.24

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.55

1.99

1.09

1.72

1.41

1.84

0.91

1.75

1.35

1.76

1.00

1.79

1.11

1.66

0.86

1.81

1.16

1.81

0.83

1.74

1.10

1.69

0.72

1.92

1.41

1.75

1.00

1.70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.12

1.66

1.91

2.20

1.68

1.77

2.02

1.56

1.51

1.99

1.62

1.81

2.11

1.89

1.69

1.98

1.60

1.42

2.14

1.67

1.57

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.90

1.70

1.55

1.15

0.98

1.92

1.43

0.70

0.92

1.48

1.33

1.04

0.88

1.77

1.39

0.70

0.98

1.75

1.73

1.02

0.99

1.71

1.42

0.62

1.17

1.81

1.43

1.05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Dong Nai

122 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Ba Ria-Vung Tau

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Ba Ria-Vung Tau

5.96

6.85

5.53

6.897.43 7.29

5.17

6.67

5.72

6.53 6.577.27

5.24

6.355.81

6.537.06

7.43

5.57

6.59

5.77 5.74

6.84

7.59

4.37

5.18 5.175.69

6.837.22

4.885.51 5.65 5.47

6.98 7.22

5.596.34

5.18

6.757.23

7.83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.99

1.85

2.33

1.66

1.84

2.05

2.23

1.70

1.71

1.63

2.24

1.63

1.80

1.82

2.33

1.64

1.80

1.69

2.33

1.61

1.77

1.59

2.32

1.59

1.77

1.70

2.23

1.59

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.80

1.78

1.73

1.92

1.66

1.84

1.66

1.81

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.36

1.53

1.28

2.32

2.10

1.23

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.73

2.05

1.21

1.76

1.24

1.59

0.87

1.76

1.44

1.77

0.88

1.60

1.32

1.72

0.92

1.78

1.58

1.89

1.17

1.89

1.53

1.83

1.30

1.87

1.84

2.12

1.27

1.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.69

1.75

1.90

2.06

1.68

1.76

2.08

1.44

1.66

2.70

2.11

1.77

2.67

1.86

1.82

2.58

2.31

1.78

2.79

2.30

1.77

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.05

1.87

1.56

1.11

0.96

1.86

1.41

0.65

0.82

1.45

1.46

0.64

1.10

1.88

1.47

1.12

1.29

1.81

1.53

0.61

1.18

1.99

1.45

0.55

1.39

2.13

1.48

0.96

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ba Ria - Vung Tau

Provincial Performance in 2017 123

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Ho Chi Minh City

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Ho Chi Minh City

5.14

6.01

5.24

6.15

7.08 7.15

4.74

5.805.14

6.377.08

7.52

4.79

6.285.64

6.31

7.07 7.23

4.69

5.85 5.786.40

6.857.54

4.27

5.414.97 5.14

7.057.38

4.70

5.75

4.92 5.03

7.007.38

4.70

5.935.15 5.46

7.047.60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.77

1.93

2.33

1.57

1.66

1.92

2.34

1.59

1.56

1.87

2.38

1.57

1.69

1.91

2.34

1.59

1.63

1.69

2.31

1.61

1.60

1.97

2.37

1.58

1.75

1.68

2.12

1.59

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.81

1.80

1.57

1.86

1.75

1.81

1.63

1.81

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.19

1.87

1.09

2.10

1.82

1.00

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.23

1.70

0.82

1.72

0.91

1.59

0.73

1.80

1.02

1.66

0.71

1.75

1.58

1.90

1.10

1.83

1.51

1.88

1.07

1.85

1.51

1.92

1.19

1.75

1.49

1.83

1.06

1.78

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.24

1.95

1.74

2.17

1.94

1.64

2.07

1.90

1.44

2.51

1.77

1.57

2.63

1.92

1.72

2.28

1.98

1.54

2.36

2.10

1.54

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.96

1.71

1.26

0.77

0.92

1.79

1.23

0.75

0.94

1.49

1.31

0.53

0.92

1.73

1.43

0.61

0.89

1.76

1.39

0.76

0.92

1.86

1.42

0.54

1.10

1.90

1.35

0.80

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ho Chi Minh City

124 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Long An

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Long An

5.776.15 6.26

7.36 7.19 7.12

4.94

6.425.76

6.86 6.95 7.01

5.516.00 6.12

7.51 7.43 7.18

4.94

6.736.18

6.677.21 7.13

4.94

6.26 6.03

7.037.46 7.23

5.59 5.85

4.53

6.567.23 7.23

5.426.18

4.93

7.23 7.26 7.28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.93

1.75

1.89

1.72

1.82

1.67

1.78

1.69

1.82

1.71

1.98

1.71

1.75

1.68

2.00

1.69

1.94

1.67

1.89

1.68

1.76

1.80

1.77

1.67

1.88

2.06

1.56

1.61

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.84

1.72

1.74

1.97

1.77

1.90

1.67

1.90

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.27

1.36

1.30

2.26

1.01

1.26

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.98

2.10

1.33

1.81

1.74

1.96

1.13

1.73

1.81

2.09

1.37

1.75

1.70

1.94

1.20

1.83

1.96

2.14

1.54

1.87

1.67

1.96

1.31

1.92

1.92

2.05

1.43

1.97

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.44

1.88

1.86

2.38

1.77

1.70

2.66

1.88

1.72

2.73

2.11

1.88

2.48

1.84

1.68

2.49

2.12

1.81

2.36

1.94

1.85

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.06

1.95

1.31

1.10

1.02

1.98

1.56

1.03

1.14

1.78

1.30

0.72

1.12

1.92

1.19

0.71

1.16

1.88

1.48

0.98

1.10

1.94

1.25

0.66

1.36

2.02

1.31

1.07

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Long An

Provincial Performance in 2017 125

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Tien Giang

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Tien Giang

5.73 5.89 5.79

6.87 6.926.46

5.33 5.535.20

7.18 7.136.74

5.485.79 5.75

7.60 7.346.69

4.55

5.39 5.53

6.476.94 6.74

4.364.95 5.22

6.15

6.96 6.42

5.06

5.80

4.94

6.99 7.25

6.42

4.835.21

4.72

6.967.30

6.62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.91

1.69

1.37

1.65

1.90

1.70

1.25

1.66

1.74

1.70

1.36

1.61

1.80

1.66

1.64

1.65

1.84

1.64

1.52

1.69

1.82

1.70

1.54

1.68

1.83

1.67

1.26

1.69

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.66

1.87

1.84

1.93

1.82

1.77

1.66

1.99

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.33

1.20

1.18

2.43

1.37

1.14

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.93

2.12

1.26

1.65

1.78

2.03

1.45

1.73

1.45

1.83

1.15

1.73

1.58

1.89

1.22

1.78

1.96

2.11

1.63

1.90

1.90

2.15

1.32

1.80

1.95

2.10

1.48

1.35

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.08

1.40

1.74

2.33

1.67

1.80

1.82

1.50

1.63

2.08

1.50

1.81

2.22

1.74

1.83

2.30

1.43

1.80

2.34

1.84

1.70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.80

1.49

1.50

1.04

0.94

1.90

1.30

0.92

0.78

1.60

1.05

0.93

0.90

1.66

1.38

0.61

1.03

1.90

1.58

0.96

0.99

2.03

1.48

0.82

1.24

2.20

1.37

0.92

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Tien Giang

126 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Ben Tre

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Ben Tre

5.79 5.93

5.12

6.53 6.80 6.96

5.295.81

5.44

6.556.92 6.96

5.375.80 5.81

6.50

7.286.88

4.55

5.796.12

6.456.77 6.89

5.125.82 5.66

6.367.01 6.89

5.145.78 5.68

6.987.46

6.89

5.605.99

5.39

7.167.69 7.67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.02

2.00

1.95

1.71

1.92

1.92

1.88

1.61

1.77

1.68

1.80

1.63

1.85

1.65

1.75

1.64

1.85

1.71

1.68

1.64

1.94

1.65

1.75

1.61

1.94

1.65

1.68

1.68

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.89

1.96

1.89

1.95

1.99

1.78

1.73

1.95

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.51

1.47

1.41

2.47

1.95

1.26

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.86

2.19

1.30

1.81

1.89

2.05

1.25

1.79

1.55

1.88

1.26

1.67

1.53

1.88

1.16

1.88

1.65

1.88

1.19

1.79

1.53

1.96

1.15

1.90

1.58

1.97

1.13

1.84

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.26

2.01

1.73

2.11

1.81

1.85

2.42

1.59

1.80

2.26

1.74

1.78

2.32

1.73

1.75

2.27

1.74

1.80

2.32

1.82

1.79

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.79

1.81

1.64

1.36

0.92

1.94

1.42

0.86

1.08

1.69

1.40

0.96

0.98

1.69

1.25

0.63

1.06

1.95

1.50

0.87

1.09

2.05

1.31

0.84

1.35

2.11

1.48

0.85

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ben Tre

Provincial Performance in 2017 127

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Tra Vinh

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Tra Vinh

4.69 4.445.11 4.92

6.36 6.41

5.33

4.565.25

5.70

6.936.56

5.19

5.96 5.996.49 6.42

6.90

4.37

5.62 5.816.45

6.88 6.70

4.63 4.805.44

7.276.68 6.43

4.434.82

4.41

6.16

6.966.43

5.27 5.214.43

6.717.43 7.28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.92

1.97

1.66

1.74

1.91

1.68

1.55

1.71

1.85

1.45

1.40

1.72

2.03

1.55

1.42

1.70

2.22

1.61

1.43

1.64

1.97

1.62

1.33

1.64

1.81

1.65

1.31

1.65

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.81

1.89

1.86

1.87

1.56

1.81

1.73

1.86

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.26

0.95

1.21

2.19

1.10

1.12

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.76

2.13

1.15

1.67

1.49

1.87

1.17

1.62

1.98

2.14

1.45

1.69

1.79

1.91

1.22

1.53

1.68

1.93

1.24

1.64

1.61

1.68

1.09

1.32

1.34

1.61

1.00

0.98

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.87

1.55

1.79

1.77

1.55

1.51

1.72

1.40

1.68

2.12

1.70

1.80

2.34

1.79

1.83

1.53

1.40

1.64

1.65

1.36

1.43

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.87

1.69

1.49

1.22

0.79

1.65

1.22

0.77

0.89

1.41

1.28

1.05

0.90

1.76

1.09

0.61

0.99

2.02

1.37

0.82

0.97

1.94

1.59

0.83

0.85

1.92

1.23

0.69

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Tra Vinh

128 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Vinh Long

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Vinh Long

5.24 5.085.40

6.00

7.08 7.01

5.385.72 5.83

6.567.27 7.23

4.98

5.725.16

6.87 7.057.76

4.78

6.30 6.54

7.276.99

7.86

4.54

5.48 5.77

6.56 6.64

7.76

5.125.53

4.52

6.37

7.437.76

4.915.42 5.56

6.687.30

7.78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.95

1.95

2.12

1.77

1.84

1.64

2.01

1.62

1.86

2.02

2.19

1.69

2.04

1.98

2.16

1.67

1.96

1.78

2.40

1.62

1.95

1.64

2.03

1.61

1.92

1.69

1.75

1.65

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.72

1.97

1.82

1.79

1.76

1.90

1.84

1.92

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.29

1.98

1.29

2.27

1.12

1.13

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.74

1.93

1.30

1.70

1.62

1.94

1.02

1.80

1.64

1.96

1.26

1.69

1.82

2.05

1.44

1.97

1.66

1.96

1.20

2.06

1.70

1.99

1.24

1.62

1.53

1.84

0.94

1.69

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.92

1.70

1.80

2.08

1.65

1.80

2.31

1.54

1.63

2.65

1.83

1.81

2.22

1.90

1.60

2.28

1.87

1.57

2.09

1.34

1.64

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.77

1.64

1.53

0.98

0.93

1.87

1.48

0.85

0.90

1.58

1.37

0.69

0.95

1.68

1.53

0.62

1.01

1.89

1.32

0.77

1.06

1.99

1.58

0.75

0.93

1.83

1.54

0.95

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Vinh Long

Provincial Performance in 2017 129

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Dong Thap

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Dong Thap

5.185.48

5.94

6.767.19

6.67

4.34

5.315.62

6.17

7.076.67

4.645.03

5.496.03

6.73 6.59

5.165.73

6.246.68

7.047.06

5.285.60 5.47

6.77

7.667.06

5.195.80

5.34

6.32

7.607.08

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.94

1.66

1.82

1.66

2.04

1.59

1.85

1.61

1.90

1.66

1.86

1.63

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.75

1.60

1.61

1.63

1.77

1.67

1.58

1.65

1.65

1.74

1.63

1.65

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.86

1.97

1.90

1.87

1.88

1.96

1.89

1.94

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.39

1.66

1.30

2.42

1.87

1.17

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.65

1.89

1.19

1.60

1.77

2.09

1.27

1.64

1.81

2.01

1.27

1.59

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.46

1.77

1.04

1.76

1.60

1.80

1.08

1.70

1.73

2.04

1.47

1.52

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.10

1.89

1.81

2.21

1.61

1.79

2.38

1.54

1.81

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.89

1.55

1.59

2.00

1.60

1.70

2.09

1.84

1.55

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.07

1.59

1.40

1.13

1.10

1.64

1.44

1.10

1.13

1.47

1.45

1.11

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.86

1.46

1.38

0.94

0.73

1.52

1.11

0.99

0.87

1.80

1.35

1.16

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Dong Thap

130 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): An Giang

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): An Giang

4.87 4.96 4.74

5.54

6.476.81

4.695.08 5.03

5.42

6.546.87

4.795.30

4.64

6.54 6.687.10

4.76

5.58 5.73

7.02 6.89 7.16

4.384.82

5.285.85

6.65

7.29

4.48

5.605.04

5.76

7.21 7.29

5.245.89

4.56

6.957.26 7.61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.08

1.69

2.15

1.69

1.91

1.80

2.15

1.67

1.82

1.74

2.08

1.65

1.90

1.58

2.01

1.67

1.85

1.67

1.93

1.65

1.82

1.59

1.83

1.63

1.73

1.67

1.80

1.60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.78

1.90

1.72

1.87

1.77

1.88

1.65

1.91

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.27

1.05

1.24

2.14

1.79

1.11

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.84

2.01

1.38

1.71

1.47

1.85

1.03

1.41

1.38

1.74

1.01

1.73

1.77

2.01

1.35

1.88

1.66

1.98

1.16

1.74

1.23

1.61

0.93

1.64

1.18

1.77

0.91

1.68

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.44

1.70

1.75

2.29

1.45

1.86

1.78

1.46

1.58

2.10

1.67

1.81

1.86

1.70

1.74

2.07

1.51

1.51

1.87

1.59

1.49

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.98

1.61

1.48

1.17

0.87

1.55

1.15

0.91

0.90

1.36

1.34

0.78

1.02

1.53

1.30

0.91

0.93

1.67

1.16

1.03

0.95

1.70

1.23

0.81

0.99

1.80

1.23

0.84

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

An Giang

Provincial Performance in 2017 131

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Kien Giang

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Kien Giang

5.094.77

5.295.74

6.87 6.99

5.01 4.784.42

5.15

6.647.04

4.595.17 5.36

6.216.74

7.46

4.385.07

5.705.99

6.917.26

4.62 4.82 4.82

6.41 6.53

7.25

4.575.06

4.13

5.66

6.727.25

5.19 5.264.46

6.27

7.07 7.47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.83

1.98

1.97

1.69

1.68

1.69

1.99

1.70

1.87

1.67

2.07

1.64

1.78

1.81

2.02

1.66

1.72

2.13

1.96

1.65

1.70

1.63

2.07

1.64

1.73

1.69

1.96

1.62

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.67

1.76

1.84

1.79

1.67

1.70

1.58

1.77

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.27

1.11

1.08

1.96

1.13

1.05

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.65

1.88

1.23

1.50

1.40

1.83

1.00

1.42

1.61

1.87

1.22

1.71

1.40

1.72

1.07

1.80

1.52

1.75

1.08

1.85

1.13

1.47

0.81

1.73

1.37

1.60

1.14

1.64

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.15

1.57

1.54

1.93

1.46

1.66

1.76

1.44

1.62

1.99

1.53

1.55

1.85

1.90

1.42

1.98

1.33

1.46

1.64

1.79

1.34

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.00

1.84

1.50

0.86

0.86

1.70

1.33

0.69

0.84

1.57

1.47

0.74

0.92

1.59

1.25

0.62

0.88

1.68

1.22

0.80

0.91

1.77

1.44

0.89

1.05

1.90

1.26

0.87

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Kien Giang

132 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Can Tho

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Can Tho

5.72 5.49 5.555.95

6.35 6.55

5.815.45 5.65

6.226.85 6.77

5.396.05

5.17

7.176.85 6.75

4.83 5.06 5.10

5.936.59 6.71

5.11

6.14 6.27

7.22 7.39 7.22

5.79 5.94 5.69

7.14 7.41 7.22

5.566.12

5.04

7.16 6.957.48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.95

1.73

2.07

1.74

2.13

1.68

2.00

1.79

1.83

1.67

1.96

1.76

1.78

1.56

1.75

1.62

1.80

1.60

1.69

1.66

1.85

1.38

1.91

1.63

1.80

1.40

1.75

1.60

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.79

1.75

1.58

1.84

1.86

1.88

1.76

1.91

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.32

1.50

1.22

2.59

1.69

1.41

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.97

2.05

1.34

1.79

1.85

2.07

1.31

1.91

2.04

2.08

1.31

1.80

1.49

1.83

0.94

1.68

1.87

2.04

1.42

1.85

1.55

1.79

1.08

1.81

1.44

1.89

1.08

1.54

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.48

1.87

1.77

2.27

1.83

1.84

2.45

1.83

1.86

1.85

1.47

1.75

2.42

1.85

1.77

2.17

1.69

1.59

1.96

1.80

1.73

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.02

1.77

1.60

1.17

1.25

2.04

1.44

1.06

1.26

1.67

1.21

0.96

1.04

1.54

1.41

0.84

1.18

2.00

1.23

0.98

1.31

2.04

1.30

1.16

1.27

1.81

1.62

1.02

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Can Tho

Provincial Performance in 2017 133

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Hau Giang

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Hau Giang

4.97 4.795.27

5.77

6.79 6.72

4.955.55 5.77

6.426.81 6.94

5.73 5.566.10

6.496.89 7.05

4.38

6.06 5.996.62 6.78 6.75

4.354.98

5.32

6.30 6.15

6.67

5.18 4.964.57

6.406.96

6.67

4.55

5.45 5.43

6.617.14 6.98

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.96

1.70

1.66

1.66

1.96

1.28

1.64

1.68

1.68

1.61

1.68

1.70

2.01

1.51

1.53

1.70

1.92

1.86

1.59

1.68

1.82

1.82

1.59

1.70

1.74

1.64

1.62

1.71

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.73

1.88

1.65

1.88

1.84

1.70

1.53

1.89

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.50

1.60

1.34

2.36

0.97

1.23

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.79

1.92

1.20

1.70

1.73

1.91

1.08

1.68

1.63

1.89

1.08

1.69

1.60

1.88

1.22

1.92

1.76

1.94

1.06

1.72

1.67

1.89

1.06

1.80

1.53

1.85

1.10

1.28

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.21

1.47

1.78

1.71

1.53

1.72

1.83

1.51

1.64

2.48

1.99

1.59

2.17

1.71

1.68

2.10

1.62

1.82

1.88

1.44

1.48

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.83

1.53

1.37

0.82

1.05

1.74

1.42

0.98

0.97

1.51

1.18

0.69

0.94

1.63

1.17

0.64

1.24

1.73

1.64

1.11

0.96

1.63

1.38

0.99

1.03

1.75

1.53

0.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Hau Giang

134 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Soc Trang

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Soc Trang

4.90 4.92 5.15

6.946.58 6.64

4.585.20

5.92

7.016.42

6.74

4.62

5.445.90

6.956.37

6.87

4.65

5.455.75

6.68 6.436.83

4.895.23 5.16

6.59 6.44

6.96

5.04 4.825.21

5.75

7.436.96

4.80 4.994.66

6.457.16 7.05

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.96

1.67

1.72

1.70

2.11

1.75

1.70

1.65

1.83

1.69

1.74

1.70

1.92

1.67

1.57

1.68

1.91

1.66

1.61

1.69

1.72

1.68

1.67

1.67

1.74

1.64

1.66

1.59

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.64

1.88

1.73

1.91

1.73

1.94

1.83

1.93

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.17

1.22

1.27

2.41

1.55

1.25

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.70

1.89

1.19

1.67

1.29

1.86

0.99

1.62

1.70

1.98

1.20

1.71

1.72

2.00

1.15

1.81

1.81

2.06

1.46

1.62

1.83

2.12

1.28

1.78

1.92

2.25

1.31

1.47

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.75

1.44

1.79

1.62

1.51

1.70

1.91

1.26

2.06

1.98

1.70

1.77

2.16

1.67

1.61

1.99

1.50

1.71

2.01

1.43

1.48

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.76

1.64

1.33

1.08

0.92

1.74

1.56

0.82

0.85

1.47

1.41

1.16

0.82

1.65

1.29

0.89

0.92

1.66

1.37

0.67

0.95

1.77

1.21

0.64

0.82

1.79

1.51

0.77

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Soc Trang

Provincial Performance in 2017 135

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Bac Lieu

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Bac Lieu

4.64 4.675.06

6.306.86 6.74

4.54 4.66 4.74

5.62

6.81 6.98

4.845.24 4.99

6.38 6.376.94

4.765.37 5.63

6.59 6.71 6.94

4.72 4.78

5.54

6.40 6.586.95

4.80 4.81 4.56

5.38

6.82 6.95

5.796.33

4.92

6.857.40 7.43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.04

1.70

1.98

1.70

1.95

1.67

1.71

1.63

1.81

1.68

1.78

1.68

1.78

1.64

1.84

1.69

1.80

1.66

1.86

1.62

1.79

1.70

1.80

1.69

1.61

1.74

1.77

1.63

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.87

1.90

1.81

1.82

1.71

1.71

1.56

1.83

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.51

1.17

1.23

2.12

1.37

1.08

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.83

2.08

1.42

1.51

1.17

1.79

0.80

1.62

1.65

1.91

1.06

1.78

1.71

1.93

1.18

1.78

1.58

1.83

1.15

1.82

1.30

1.77

0.95

1.61

1.53

1.95

1.15

1.67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.32

2.00

2.01

1.76

1.41

1.64

1.76

1.31

1.71

1.85

1.74

1.78

1.83

1.83

1.57

1.71

1.41

1.53

1.96

1.40

1.32

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.92

1.65

1.58

1.65

0.85

1.63

1.62

0.71

0.93

1.51

1.38

0.91

0.92

1.74

1.31

0.79

0.84

1.72

1.46

0.82

0.84

1.72

1.18

0.81

0.91

1.70

1.34

0.68

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Bac Lieu

136 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Note: Changes were made to Dimensions 1, 3 and 5 in 2016; hence, comparison of results for 2011-2017 is not advised.

Note (*): Due to major changes made to Dimensions 3 and 5, year-to-year comparisions in these two dimensions are not shown in this 2017 PAPI provincial profile.

Sub-dimensional Scores (2011-2017): Ca Mau

Trends Over Time by Dimension (2011-2017): Ca Mau

4.815.46 5.18

6.86 6.856.32

4.555.05

5.34

6.176.58

6.13

4.45

5.42 5.51

6.60 6.596.02

5.215.80 5.61

7.296.81

6.46

4.61

5.50 5.68

6.406.83

6.81

4.61 4.815.11

6.12

7.01 6.81

4.655.32 5.17

6.26

7.27

6.28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participation at Local Levels* Transparency Vertical Accountability* Control of Corruption Public AdministrativeProcedures*

Public Service Delivery

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.93

1.06

1.63

1.67

1.91

1.66

1.33

1.66

2.01

1.73

1.40

1.66

1.73

1.66

1.31

1.77

1.62

1.47

1.29

1.65

1.75

1.37

1.34

1.67

1.75

1.53

1.40

1.64

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Hea

lthEd

ucat

ion

Infr

aest

ruct

ure

Law

and

Ord

er

Public Service Delivery2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1.83

1.81

1.60

2.03

1.80

1.68

1.57

1.96

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Cert

ifica

tion

Proc

edur

esCo

nstr

uctio

nPe

rmits

Land

Proc

edur

esPe

rson

alPr

oced

ures

Public Administrative Procedures (*)2016 2017

2.19

1.76

1.22

2.22

1.79

1.11

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Inte

ract

ions

with

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Citiz

en A

ctio

nsPe

ople

's In

vest

men

tBo

ards

Vertical Accountability (*)

2016 2017

1.53

1.93

1.08

1.72

1.42

1.92

1.06

1.71

1.64

2.04

1.09

1.63

1.99

2.06

1.25

1.99

1.69

1.89

1.15

1.86

1.51

1.82

1.01

1.83

1.59

1.88

1.33

2.06

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Lim

its o

n Pu

blic

Sect

orCo

rrup

tion

Lim

its o

nCo

rrup

tion

inSe

rvic

e D

eliv

ery

Equi

ty in

Empl

oym

ent

Will

ingn

ess

tofig

ht c

orru

ptio

n

Control of Corruption2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2.11

1.53

1.68

1.76

1.33

1.72

2.16

1.58

1.75

2.36

1.64

1.79

1.98

1.76

1.68

1.62

1.64

1.78

2.10

1.47

1.89

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pove

rty

List

sCo

mm

une

Budg

ets

Land

-Use

Pla

ns

Transparency2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0.81

1.43

1.55

0.86

0.89

1.61

1.36

0.74

0.84

1.31

1.51

0.95

0.99

1.59

1.57

1.06

0.88

1.34

1.44

0.78

0.93

1.50

1.22

0.90

1.05

1.66

1.45

0.65

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Civi

cKn

owle

dge

Opp

ortu

nitie

sfo

rPa

rtic

ipat

ion

Elec

tions

Qua

lity

Volu

ntar

yCo

ntrib

utio

ns

Participation at Local Levels2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ca Mau

BIBLIOGRAPHY137

BIBLIOGRAPHYBui, Phuong Dinh et al. (2017). Strengthening PAPI Scores: Achieved Results and Lessons Learnt in Bac Kan, Lam

Dong and Dong Nai. Series of policy research briefs for select provinces by Bui Phuong Dinh, Le Van Chien, Dang Anh Tuyet and Ha Viet Hung. Hanoi, 2017: HCMA.

CECODES, VFF-CRT & UNDP (2017). The Viet Nam’s Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) 2016: Measuring Citizens’ Experience. Ha Noi. Available at www.papi.org.vn.

CECODES, VFF-CRT & UNDP (2016). The Viet Nam’s Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) 2015: Measuring Citizens’ Experience. Ha Noi. Available at www.papi.org.vn.

CECODES, VLA & UNDP (2013 & 2015). The Viet Nam Justice Index (VJI). Available at https://chisocongly.vn/chi-so-cong-ly/ and http://www.vn.undp.org/content/vietnam/vi/home/library/democratic_governance/2015-justice-index.html

CECODES, VFF-CRT & UNDP (2015). The Viet Nam’s Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) 2014: Measuring Citizens’ Experience. Ha Noi. Available at www.papi.org.vn.

CECODES, VFF-CRT & UNDP (2014). The Viet Nam’s Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) 2013: Measuring Citizens’ Experience. Ha Noi. Available at www.papi.org.vn.

CECODES, VFF-CRT & UNDP (2013). The Viet Nam’s Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) 2012: Measuring Citizens’ Experience. Ha Noi. Available at www.papi.org.vn.

CECODES, FR, CPP & UNDP (2012). The Viet Nam’s Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) 2011: Measuring Citizens’ Experience. Ha Noi. Available at www.papi.org.vn.

Doner, R., and Ben Ross Schneider (2016). The Middle-Income Trap: More Politics than Economics. World Politics, 68(4), 608-644. doi:10.1017/S0043887116000095

Government of Viet Nam (18/11/2016). Resolution 100/NQ-CP dated 18 November 2016 on the issuance of the Action Plan for the 2016-2021 Government. Available at http://www.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=509&_page=1&mode=detail&document_id=187221.

Government of Viet Nam (2016). Report on anti-corruption work in 2016 (Report No. 419/BC-CP) to XIV National Assembly in October 2016 [in which PAPI data was cited to reflect local governments’ efforts to improve transparency improvement].

Government of Viet Nam and United Nations (2012). One Plan 2012 – 2016 Between the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the United Nations in Viet Nam. 27 March. Ha Noi, available at http://www.un.org.vn.

Ho Chi Minh City’s Party Website (29 August 2017). Đẩy mạnh hợp tác giữa TPHCM với UNDP tại Việt Nam. Available at https://www.hcmcpv.org.vn/print?id=1491836827

Korea Times (9 November 2017). “KEPCO to Build Coal-fired Power Plant in Vietnam.” Available at http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2017/11/693_239011.html

Malesky, E. (2018). The Viet Nam Provincial Competitiveness Index: Measuring economic governance for private sector development 2017. Viet Nam Chamber of Commerce and Industry and United States Agency for International Development. Ha Noi, Viet Nam [available at http://eng.pcivietnam.org/bao-cao-pci-c17.html].

Malesky, E., Regina Abrami and Yu Zheng (2011). Institutions and Inequality in Single-Party Regimes: A Comparative Analysis of Vietnam and China. In Comparative Politics. 43(4): pp. 409-427.

138 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Mathieu, T. (2016). Corruption and corruption research in Vietnam – an overview. In Crime, Law and Social Change, Vol. 65, Issue 4-5, pp. 287-306. Springer, Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9605-y

Ministry of Health (2013). Decision No 4858/QĐ-BYT on issuance of monitoring and evaluation criteria on hospital quality dated 3 December 2013. Available at http://thuvienphapluat.vn/archive/Quyet-dinh-4858-QD-BYT-nam-2013-thi-diem-Bo-tieu-chi-danh-gia-chat-luong-benh-vien-vb217343.aspx.

Ministry of Home Affairs (2017). Report on the Public Administration Reform (PAR) Index 2016. Ha Noi. Available at https://www.moha.gov.vn/danh-muc/par-index-2016-cua-cac-bo-co-quan-ngang-bo-uy-ban-nhan-dan-cac-tinh-thanh-pho-truc-thuoc-trung-uong-32944.html.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (2016). Decision No. 931/QĐ-BTNMT of the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment on setting up hotlines to collect citizen and business feedback on bribery in the areas of natural resources and environment, including land administration, dated 4 May 2016. Available at http://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Bo-may-hanh-chinh/Quyet-dinh-931-QD-BTNMT-thanh-lap-duong-day-nong-kien-nghi-tieu-cuc-quan-ly-tai-nguyen-moi-truong-2016-310110.aspx.

National Assembly of Viet Nam XIII (2013). Land Law No. 45/2013/QH13.

National Assembly of Viet Nam XIII (2016). Land on Access to Information No. 104/2016/QH13.

National Economics University and United Nations Development Programme (2017). A Sectorial Study of Transparency and Corruption in Land Acquisition. A Joint Policy Research Paper on Governance and Participation commissioned by Asia-Pacific Institute of Management (the National Economics University) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Viet Nam. Ha Noi, Viet Nam: January 2017. Available at http://www.vn.undp.org/ content/vietnam/en/home/ library/democratic_governance/ a-sectorial-study-of- transparency-and-corruption- in-land-acquisition-in-viet- nam.html.

Nhan Dan Dien Tu (22 June 2017). The 2017 Legislative and Normative Documents Development by the National Assembly. Available at http://nhandan.com.vn/chinhtri/item/33240002-nghi-quyet-chuong-trinh-xay-dung-luat-phap-lenh-nam-2018-va-dieu-chinh-chuong-trinh-xay-dung-luat-phap-lenh-nam-2017.html

OECD Development Centre (2017). Youth-Well-being Policy Review of Viet Nam. EU-OECD Youth Inclusion Project, Paris. Available at http://www.oecd.org/countries/vietnam/OECDYouthReportVietNam_ebook.pdf [which used PAPI data for analysis of youth inclusion in governance and public administration in Viet Nam]

Princeton University (2014). Measuring Citizen Experiences: Conducting a Social Audit in Viet Nam (2009-2013). Report prepared by Rachel Jackson for Innovations for Successful Societies, Princeton University. Available at http://successfulsocieties.princeton.edu/sites/successfulsocieties/files/Rachel_Jackson_PAPI_Vietnam_8Dec14%20final.pdf.

Thanh Nien (03 July 2017). Chủ tịch Quốc hội nhắc Hà Nội cải thiện chỉ số hành chính công. Available at https://thanhnien.vn/thoi-su/chu-tich-quoc-hoi-nhac-ha-noi-cai-thien-chi-so-hanh-chinh-cong-851608.html

Thang, Bach Ngoc, Nguyen Van Thang and Do Thanh Huyen (2015). Combating Corruption for Improved Quality of Public Services in Vietnam. In Focus, Vietnam Law and Legal Forum, pp. 15-18, 34, January 2016 issue. Viet Nam: 2016. Available at http://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/combating-corruption-for-improved-quality-of-public-services-in-vietnam-5203.html.

Thang, Nguyen Van, Bach Ngoc Thang, Le Quang Thanh and Le Quang Canh (2015). Local Governance, Corruption and Public Service Quality: Evidence from a National Survey in Viet Nam. A joint policy research paper on governance and participation commissioned by the Asia-Pacific Institute for Management (the National Economics University) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Viet Nam. Ha Noi, Viet Nam: December 2015. Available at http://www.vn.undp.org/content/vietnam/en/home/library/democratic_governance/local-governance-corruption-and-public-service-quality.html.

BIBLIOGRAPHY139

Thang, Nguyen Van, Bach Ngoc Thang, Le Quang Thanh, and Le Quang Canh. (2017). Local governance, corruption, and public service quality: Evidence from a national survey in Vietnam. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 30(2). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2016-0128.

Thang, Nguyen Van, Do Thanh Huyen et al. (2017). Corruption in land-related projects and ways to address it from socially structured perspectives. Vietnam Law and Legal Forum, pp. 42-48, the January-February 2017 issue. Viet Nam: 2017. Available at http://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/corruption-in-land-related-projects-and-ways-to-address-it-from-socially-structured-perspectives-5745.html

The Program on Governance and Local Development’s Newsletter (October 2017). Available at http://gld.gu.se/en/resources/newsletters/october-2017/

Thoi Bao Kinh Te Sai Gon (05/05/2014): Hiểu rõ về các chỉ số đo lường chất lượng điều hành của Việt Nam (Edmund Malesky, Jairo Acuña-Alfaro, Dau Anh Tuan). An article in response to the article “So sánh chỉ số PAPI và PCI: những câu hỏi còn đó” by Dr Le Dang Doanh, an independent senior economist with Thoi Bao Kinh Te Sai Gon (12/04/2014). Available at http://www.thesaigontimes.vn/114299/.

Thoi bao Tai chinh Viet Nam (29 July 2017). 6 tháng: Trên 95% số đơn khiếu nại về lĩnh vực đất đai. Available at http://thoibaotaichinhvietnam.vn/pages/xa-hoi/2017-07-29/6-thang-tren-95-so-don-khieu-nai-ve-linh-vuc-dat-dai-46029.aspx.

Tuoi Tre Cuoi Tuan (2014). Quản trị nhà nước: Phải đo lường được để cải thiện, by Dang Hoang Giang, in Tuoi Tre Cuoi Tuan, Issue 13-2014, 13/04/2014.

Tran, Thi Bich (2014). The Cycle of Transparency, Accountability, Corruption, and Administrative Performance: Evidence from Viet Nam. Journal of Economics and Development, Vol.16, No.3, pp. 32-48, December 2014.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (27/05/2015). 2014 PAPI Survey: A Mixed Bag of Results. In Politics, EIU, May 2015 issue. Available at https://country.eiu.com/Vietnam/ArticleList/Analysis/Politics.

United Nations in Viet Nam (2014). Viet Nam Country Dialogue on Post 2015, Interim Report: An Overview of Selected Initiatives on Participatory Monitoring for Accountability in Viet Nam.

UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (November, 2017). A Review of National Statistics Offices’ Practices and Methodological Considerations in Measuring Citizen Satisfaction with Public Services: Inputs for SDG Indicator 16.6.2 Measurement Methodology. November 2017 [Final Draft Report]

UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence (2016). Citizen Engagement in Public Service Delivery: The Critical Role of Public Officials. Discussion Paper. Singapore [available at http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/capacity-building/global-centre-for-public-service-excellence/CitizenEngagement.html].

UNDP and Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences (VASS) (2016). Growth that Works for All: Viet Nam Human Development Report 2015 on Inclusive Growth. Ha Noi: Social Sciences Publishing House [available at http://www.vn.undp.org/content/vietnam/en/home/library/poverty/human-development-report-viet-nam-2015/].

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2014). Anti-corruption Strategies: What Works, What Doesn’t and Why – Lessons Learned from the Asia-Pacific Region [available at http://www.asia-pacific.undp.org/content/rbap/en/home/library/democratic_governance/anti-corruption-strategies.html].

Viet Nam Fatherland Front (VFF), Centre for Community Support and Development Studies (CECODES) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2010). Towards a Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) at the Provincial Level in Viet Nam. Report on the pilot project. January. Ha Noi [available at www.papi.vn].

VFF, CECODES & UNDP (2011). The Viet Nam Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) 2010: Measuring Citizens’ Experiences. Ha Noi.

140 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Viet Nam Lawyers Association and UNDP (2016). 2015 Justice Index: Towards a Justice System for the People. Ha Noi: May 2016. Available at https://chisocongly.vn/en/.

Voice of Viet Nam (11 October 2017). Toàn văn phát biểu bế mạc hội nghị Trung ương 6 của Tổng bí thư. Available at http://vov.vn/chinh-tri/toan-van-phat-bieu-be-mac-hoi-nghi-trung-uong-6-cua-tong-bi-thu-681634.vov

Wells-Dang, A., Le Kim Thai, Nguyen Tran Lam, and Do Thanh Huyen (October 2015). Increasing Citizen Participation in Governance in Vietnam. In Focus, Vietnam Law and Legal Forum, pp. 10-14, 34, the October 2015 issue. Viet Nam: 2015. Available at http://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/increasing-citizen-participation-in-governance-in-vietnam-5047.html.

Wells-Dang, A., Le Kim Thai and Nguyen Tran Lam (2015). Between Trust and Structure: Citizen Participation and Local Elections in Viet Nam. A Joint Policy Research Paper on Governance and Participation commissioned by Oxfam in Viet Nam and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Viet Nam. Ha Noi, Viet Nam: August 2015. Available at http://www.vn.undp.org/content/vietnam/en/home/library/democratic_governance/citizen-participation-and-local-elections-in-viet-nam.html.

World Bank and Ministry of Planning and Investment (2016). Viet Nam 2035: Toward Prosperity, Creativity, Equity, and Democracy. Washington DC.: World Bank. Available at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/23724.

World Bank (2014). Land Transparency Study: A Synthesis Report. Available at http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/vietnam/publication/vietnam-land-transparency-study

World Bank (2012). Well-Begun, Not Yet Done: Vietnam’s Remarkable Progress on Poverty Reduction and Emerging Challenges. Hanoi, p.1.

World Bank (2011). Tax Reform in Vietnam: Towards a More Efficient and Equitable System. Hanoi.

APPENDICES141

APPENDICESAppendix A: An Update of Provincial Responses to PAPI through 2017

No. Provinces Actions in Response to PAPI

1 An Giang - Action Plan No. 147/CTr-UBND dated 22 April 2015- Decision No. 2498/QD-UBND on Establishment of Steering Board on Implementation of PAPI Action Plan 2016-2020, dated 8 September 2016- Decision No. 933/QĐ-UBND on 27 March 2017 on information and communication in an effort to improve PAPI for the period from 2017-2020

2 Bà Rịa-Vũng Tàu - Provincial Plan to organise diagnostic workshop on PAPI, PCI and PAR Index dated 28 September 2016 and provincial leaders’ discussion on PAPI findings in 2016- Decision No. 2922/QĐ-UBND on issuance of the Action Plan on Improving PAPI for the period from 2017-2020 dated 16 October 2017

3 Bắc Giang Action Plan No. 1492 KH-UBND dated 6 June 2014 on improving performance for higher provincial PAPI scores

4 Bắc Kạn - Diagnostic workshop on PAPI findings on 7 September 2017, and local governments were advised on what should be done to improve provincial performance- Debriefing of policy advice for local governments in Bac Kan on how to improve their performance in governance and public administration on 22 November 2017

5 Bạc Liêu - Diagnostic workshop on PAPI findings on 23 November 2016- Provincial People’s Committee’s Decision on establishment of Working Groups on PAPI and PCI, dated 26 April 2017

6 Bắc Ninh Action Plan No. 05/CT-UBND on maintaining and sustaining provincial PAPI scores, dated 13 May 2016

7 Bến Tre Action Plan No. 4129/KH-UBND on improving PAPI, dated 13 August 2015

8 Bình Định - Directive No. 13/CT-UBND on improving PAPI, dated 8 August 2013- Directive No. 23/CT-UBND on strengthening responsibilities of heads of agencies in PAR, with a focus on improving PAPI

9 Bình Dương - Regional diagnostic workshop hosted in Binh Duong on 7 May 2015 with the participation of provincial leaders and key public officials- Directive No. 13/CT-UBND on improving civil service performance so as to increase PAPI scores

10 Bình Phước People’s Committee’s official letter requesting departments and districts to improve PAPI scores

11 Bình Thuận Directive No. 28/CT-UBND dated 13 September 2013 on improving public administration reforms, including PAPI scores

12 Cà Mau Directive No. 06/CT-UBND dated 17 September 2013 on improving PAPI

13 Cần Thơ Decision No. 1552/QD-UBND dated 1 June 2015 on Action Plan to Improve PAPI score from 2015-2017

14 Cao Bằng Provincial diagnostic workshop with provincial leaders and key public officials on 18 September 2012

15 Đà Nẵng - Annual in-depth analysis of PAPI findings by Da Nang People’s Committee - People’s Committee’s leader shared Da Nang’s experience in maintaining high PAPI scores at 2015 PAPI launching event

16 Đắk Lắk - Official Letter No. 2211/UBND-TH dated 3 May 2012- Provincial diagnostic workshop convened by Da Lak Provincial People’s Committee on 2014 PAPI findings on 20 July 2015

17 Đắk Nông Decision No. 276/QĐ-UBND/2013 dated 22 February 2013 with concrete action plan

18 Điện Biên Provincial diagnostics workshop and comparative analysis, 2012, with participation of provincial leaders and key public officials

142 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

No. Provinces Actions in Response to PAPI

19 Đồng Nai - Diagnostic workshop on PAPI findings on 13 July 2017, and local governments were advised on what should be done to improve provincial performance- Dong Nai issued Official Letter No. 7213/UBND-HC on 31 July 2017 to request provincial departments, districts and communes to take actions to improve their performance and increase citizen satisfaction in PAPI

20 Đồng Tháp Directive No. 13/CT-UBND on improving PAPI scores in Dong Thap dated 5 August 2013

21 Gia Lai Action Plan No 3119/CTr-UBND on improving PAPI scores for the period 2016-2020

22 Hà Giang - Resolution No. 118-NQ-HĐND dated 11 December 2013 stressing the importance to increase PAPI scores - Action Plan No. 119/CTr-UBND on improving governance and public administration performance towards 2015, dated 21 July 2014- Action Plan No. 153/CTr-UBND on improving governance and public administration performance in 2017, dated 30 May 2017

23 Hà Nam Directive No. 08/CT-UBND on strengthening responsibility of heads of agencies in public administrative procedure reforms, with an objective to improve PAPI scores

24 Hà Nội - Plan No. 171/KH-UBND on implementation of Directive 03 of Ha Noi Party Committee, with an objective to improve PAPI scores- Action Plan No. 177/KH-UBND on 25 July 2017 of the People’s Committee on improving Ha Noi’s performance in governance and public administration performance

25 Hà Tĩnh Decision No. 4114/QD-UBND on PAR Plan in 2015 with an aim to maintain and improve PAPI scores

26 Hải Dương - Provincial Resolution on Socio-economic Development of the province, with a focus on PAPI with an aim to be ranked higher by 2020 - 2017 Provincial Report on use of PAPI and PCI

27 Hải Phòng - PAPI defined as a means of verification for PAR monitoring and evaluation in Hai Phong in Provincial People’s Committee Decision No 617/QD-UBND on 17 March 2014- Decision No. 3323/QĐ-UBND on issuance of the public administration reform work plan in 2017, with an objective to improve PAPI scores

28 Hậu Giang - Regional diagnostic workshop hosted in Hau Giang on 4 June 2013 with the participation of provincial leaders and key public officials - Action Plan No. 99/KH-UBND of Hau Giang People’s Committee dated 31 August 2017 to implement measures to improve provincial performance in governance and public administration

29 Hòa Bình Provincial leaders discussed taking PAPI as means of verification for development in the province

30 Hưng Yên Provincial People’s Committee set improving PAPI scores among top five objectives

31 Khánh Hòa - People’s Committee assigning relevant agencies to improve PAPI scores- Decision No. 942/QD-UBND on dissemination of PAR information, including PAPI findings

32 Kiên Giang - Directive No. 1453/CT-UBND on improving PAPI, in addition to other indexes (PCI, PAR-Index, SIPAS), dated 7 July 2017

33 Kon Tum - Replicated PAPI survey for nine districts in 2011 - Decision No. 703/QĐ-UBND on improving PAPI scores, dated 3 August 2012

34 Lai Châu - Decision No. 1331/QD-UBND on Action Plan to Implement PAR, with reference to PAPI - Directive No. 11/CT-UBND on measures to improve PAPI scores, dated 11 November 2015

35 Lâm Đồng - Diagnostic workshop on PAPI findings on 4 August 2017, and local governments were advised on what should be done to improve provincial performance- Action Plan No. 7641/KH-UBND of Lam Dong People’s Committee dated 10 November 2017 on improving provincial performance in governance and public administration

36 Lạng Sơn - Action Plan No 108/KH-UBND on improving PAPI scores in 2016 and following years - Action Plan No. 131/KH-UBND on improving PAPI scores in 2017 and years to come

APPENDICES143

No. Provinces Actions in Response to PAPI

37 Lào Cai Plan No 184/KH-UBND on 28 June 2016 on implementation of Government of Viet Nam resolution on improving national competitiveness, with a focus on improving PAPI scores

38 Long An - Long An Peoples’ Committee leaders to ask for continued efforts to improve PAPI scores by enhancing transparency of administrative procedures and capacity of public sector human resources- Regional diagnostic workshop hosted in Long An on 5 June 2013 with the participation of provincial leaders and key public officials; and Long An provincial leader attended 2012 PAPI launch to share the province’s experiences

39 Nam Định Nam Dinh Provincial People’s Committee shared the province’s experience in addressing citizen needs at 2012 PAPI launch

40 Nghệ An - Provincial diagnostic workshop convened by Nghe An Provincial People’s Committee to discuss 2014 PAPI findings on 11 August 2015- Action Plan No. 52/KH-UBND on 6 February 2017 on dissemination of public administration reforms, with one of the objectives to disseminate monitoring results regarding PAPI scores improvement

41 Ninh Bình Action Plan No. 97/KH-UBND on 28 December 2015 on Public Administration Reforms, with PAPI as an objective

42 Ninh Thuận - Action Plan No. 302/CTr-UBND dated 15 April 2016 on improving PAPI scores for the period from 2016-2020- Resolution of Ninh Thuan People’s Council No. 54/2016/NQ-HĐND on queries at 2nd Session of the People’s Council Meeting, with questions about PAPI

43 Phú Thọ - PAPI as a means of verification for overseeing Phu Tho’s Party Resolution for 2015-2020 - Regional workshop on 2015 PAPI findings dissemination hosted by Phu Tho Provincial People’s Committee on 5 July 2016

44 Phú Yên - Action Plan No. 03/CTr-UBND dated 11 April 2014 - Plan No 84/KH-UBND dated 10 June 2016 on implementation of action plan on improving PAPI scores, among others

45 Quảng Bình - Directive No 06/CT-UBND on strengthening public administrative reforms to improve provincial PAPI scores - Provincial People Committee’s regular monitoring of the province’s performance in PAPI

46 Quảng Nam - Resolution No 156/2015/HDND on additional activities on socio-economic development for the second half of 2015, with improvement in PAPI scores as an add-on - Directive No 15/CT-UBND on improving PAPI, PAR-Index and ICT-Index for the period 2017-2020

47 Quảng Ngãi - Directive No 19/CT-UBND on improving PAPI scores dated 29 November 2012 - Resolution No. 08/2013/NQ-HDND on 10 July 2013 with reference to PAPI- Directive No. 12/CT-UBND dated 11 October 2017 on improving PAPI scores, in addition to PAR-Index and PCI

48 Quảng Ninh - Decision No. 6568/KH-UBND on improving PAPI scores, dated 18 Nov 2014- Action Plan No 916/KH-UBND on implementation of Directive No. 03-CT/TU on 29 December 2015 on improving PAPI scores

49 Quảng Trị Decision No 1339/QD-UBND on Action Plan to Maintain and Strengthen PAPI for 2014-2016

50 Sóc Trăng - Regional diagnostic workshop on 2014 PAPI findings hosted by Soc Trang People’s Committee on 8 May 2015- Provincial diagnostics workshop and comparative analysis, 2012

51 Sơn La Action Plan No 82/KH-UBND on improving provincial governance and public administration performance (PAPI) on 16 June 2016

52 Tây Ninh Training workshop on PAPI findings conducted on 12 November 2017 by Tay Ninh Provincial Committee and the Fulbright University, with more than 200 public officials from provincial departments attending

144 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

No. Provinces Actions in Response to PAPI

53 Thái Bình Directive 13/CT-UBND on establishment of hotlines to collect citizen feedback, with an objective to improve PAPI scores, on 13 May 2016

54 Thái Nguyên - Resolution No. 15/2012/NQ-HDND dated 15 December 2012 - Decision No 3138/QĐ-UBND approving the Action Plan for Higher PAPI Scores for the Period 2015-2020, dated 31 December 2014

55 Thanh Hóa Decision No 3274/QD-UBND dated 26 August 2016 issuing action plans to strengthen PAR and investment environment, with a focus on improving PAPI scores

56 Thừa Thiên-Huế - Plan No 26/KH-UBND on improving PAPI scores, dated 5 March 2015 - Action Plan No. 161/KH-UBND on improving PAPI scores in 2017, dated 28 July 2017

57 Tiền Giang PAPI as a measure of the province’s economic integration, as discussed by provincial leaders on 16 April 2014

58 TP Hồ Chí Minh Decision 3292/QĐ-UBND on issuing Ho Chi Minh City’s action plan for improving PAPI scores for the period 2016-2020

59 Trà Vinh - Official Document No. 2971/UBND-NC on 8 August 2017 on actions to be taken to improve PAPI scores- Provincial diagnostics workshop and comparative analysis, 2012

60 Tuyên Quang Conclusions No. 156/TB-VPCP from Working Session with Tuyen Quang provincial leaders, in which improving PAPI scores is a vision for the province

61 Vĩnh Long - Chairman’s Official Request in July 2017 to all levels of governments in the province to improve performance in weaknesses in PAPI, PAR-Index- Provincial diagnostics workshop and comparative analysis, December 2014

62 Vĩnh Phúc Directive No 10/CT-UBND on improving PCI and PAPI scores, dated 24 July 2013

63 Yên Bái Regional diagnostic workshop on 2012 PAPI findings hosted by Yen Bai People’s Committee on 14 June 2013

Note: Evidence of provincial responses found from Google searches.

APPENDICES145

Appendix B: Citizens’ Perspective of Progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals in Viet Nam

B1. Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

Goal 16 Indicators relevant to PAPI

PAPI Questions Findings from 2016 PAPI Findings from 2017 PAPI

16.1 Significantly reduce all forms of violence andrelated death rates everywhere

16.1.3 Percentage of the population subjected to physical, psychological or sexual violence in the previous 12 months

D511d: question about whether or not citizens were physically attacked by any stranger or thief

1% of 14,063 respondents said they were subjected to physical violence by thieves or strangers.

0.7% of 14,097 respondents said they were subjected to physical violence by thieves or strangers.

16.1.4* Proportion of people that feel safe walking alone around the area they live

D510 c & d: questions about how citizens feel walking alone around the area they live during the day and during the night

97% of 14,063 respondents said they felt safe walking alone around the area they live during the day.

96% of 14,097 respondents said they felt safe walking alone around the area they live during the day.

72% of the respondents said they felt safe walking alone around the area they live during the night.

75% of the respondents said they felt safe walking alone around the area they live during the night.

16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery inall their forms

16.5.1* Percentage of persons who had at least one contact with a public official, who paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by these public officials, in the previous 12 months, disaggregated by age group, sex, region and population group

D405a: question about if respondents or their family members were asked for bribes in the past 12 months

5% of 14,063 respondents admitted they were asked for bribes by a public official in the previous 12 months.

4.5% of 14,097 respondents admitted they were asked for bribes by a public official in the previous 12 months.

D5: questions about paying bribes for public certification services, construction permits, LURCs, and personal papers

- 10% of those who used the service nationwide admitted they paid a bribe for public certification services.

- 8.4% of those who used the service nationwide admitted they paid a bribe for public certification services.

- 14.3% paid a bribe for construction permits, 23% paid a bribe for LURCs, and 9.6% paid a bribe for personal papers at the commune level.

- 11.4% paid a bribe for construction permits, 17% paid a bribe for LURCs, and 10.4% paid a bribe for personal papers at the commune level.

D6: questions about paying bribes for health care services and primary education

- 11% had to pay a bribe for their children to be better attended at public primary schools;

- 9.9% had to pay a bribe for their children to be better attended at public primary schools;

- 17% had to pay a bribe to obtain better service at public district hospitals.

- 9% had to pay a bribe to obtain better service at public district hospitals.

146 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Goal 16 Indicators relevant to PAPI

PAPI Questions Findings from 2016 PAPI Findings from 2017 PAPI

16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparentinstitutions at all levels

16.6.2* Proportion of the population satisfied withtheir last experience of public services

D5 and D6: questions about public services provided by local governments (administrative services, health care, health insurance, primary education, water supply, solid waste collection, access to electricity)

The rating of user satisfaction is presented by types of public services under PAPI 2016 survey:

The rating of user satisfaction is presented by types of public services under PAPI 2017 survey:

a. Public Administrative Services (by percentage of users satisfied with the services): - Public certification services: 81%- Public service for construction permits: 71%- Public service for LURCs: 61%- Public service for personal papers: 81%

a. Public Administrative Services (by percentage of users satisfied with the services): - Public certification services: 80%- Public service for construction permits: 75.5%- Public service for LURCs: 67.6%- Public service for personal papers: 79%

b. Public Services (by total quality rating): - Health care service at district public hospitals: 5.22 points on the 10-point scale- Public primary schools: 4.99 points on the 9-point scale

b. Public Services (by total quality rating): - Health care service at district public hospitals: 5.12 points on the 10-point scale- Public primary schools: 5.26 points on the 9-point scale

16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels

16.7.2 Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability and population group

D1 questions about citizen participation in local project implementation

- 71% of contributors to projects (34.5% male; 36.5% female) said they participated in making decision on whether the infrastructure project would be done

- 72% of contributors to projects (37.5% male; 34.5% female) said they participated in making decision on whether the infrastructure project would be done

- 44% of those (22.6% male; 21.3% female) participating in discussions on project implementation said they provided comments in project discussions

- 40.3% of those (21.6% male; 18.6% female) participating in discussions on project implementation said they provided comments in project discussions

D2: questions about citizen participation in local land planning

- 18% of the respondents (10% male, 8% female) said they were informed about local land planning

- 19% of the respondents (10% male, 9% female) said they were informed about local land planning

- 35% (22% male, 13% female) of those who were informed said they had an opportunity to comment on the land plans, among whom 91% (59% male, 32% female) said their comments were taken into account

- 30% (20% male, 10% female) of those who were informed said they had an opportunity to comment on the land plans, among whom 89% (57% male, 32% female) said their comments were taken into account

APPENDICES147

B2. Other Goals Relevant to PAPI in Perspective

Goals and Targets Indicators relevant to PAPI

PAPI Questions Findings from PAPI 2016 Findings from PAPI 2017

Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rightsto economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services,including microfinance

1.4.2 Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, with legally recognized documentation and who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and type of tenure

D207: battery of questions on land loss

On land ownership (which is state ownership in Viet Nam), about 83% of the respondents said they did not lose land as a result of local land plans in 2016.

On land ownership (which is state ownership in Viet Nam), about 86% of the respondents said they did not lose land as a result of local land plans in 2017.

Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all

6.1.1 Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services

D610: battery of questions about access to clean water for drinking and cooking

About 49% of the respondents said they had tap water for cooking and drinking.

Still, more than 6% still said they had to use unclean water for cooking and drinking.

About 54.6% of the respondents said they had tap water for cooking and drinking.

Still, more than 6% still said they had to use unclean water for cooking and drinking.

Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

7.1.1 Percentage of population with access to electricity

D607: questions on access to electricity

About 98.5% of the population had access to electricity through the national grid.

About 98.4% of the population had access to electricity through the national grid.

B3. Feeling Thermometers about Discriminative Behaviours in the Public Sector

91.47%97.05%

90.22% 89.24%93.11% 96.35%

92.06% 91.65%96.41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Female Ethnicminority

People withReligions

People withDisabilities

Immigrants LGBTI HIV/AIDSCarriers

Poor People Young AgedPeople

Percentage of Respondents Observing/Experiencing ‘No Discrimination’ (*)

Note: (*) Percentage of respondents saying ‘No’ when asked if public officials and civil servants in their localities discriminate towards people on the grounds of given personal identification characteristics, based on their own observation and experience when interacting with local government officials. Findings are based on Question D611b.

148 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Appendix C: Key Demographic Specifications of PAPI 2017 SampleFigure C: Comparison of Key Demographic Variables Over Time and with 2009 Census (%, post-stratification weights [PSW])

Male Female Kinh Other

Census 2009 49.4 50.6 85.7 14.3

PAPI 2011 47.0 53.0 84.5 15.5

PAPI 2012 47.3 52.7 84.4 15.6

PAPI 2013 47.3 52.7 84.6 15.4

PAPI 2014 47.1 52.9 83.9 16.0

PAPI 2015 45.9 54.1 83.9 15.9

PAPI 2016 45.7 54.3 83.6 16.4

PAPI 2017 47.4 52.6 83.5 16.5

47.452.6

83.5

16.5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

PERC

ENTA

GE

Figure C1: Kinh Ethnicity by Province in 2017 PAPI vs. National Census 2009 (%, PSW)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%H

ải D

ương

Hải

Phò

ngH

ưng

Yên

Thái

Bìn

hH

à N

amN

am Đ

ịnh

Quả

ng T

rịĐ

à N

ẵng

Long

An

Bình

Địn

hH

ậu G

iang

Nin

h Bì

nhBắ

c N

inh

Quả

ng B

ình

Cà M

auH

à N

ộiBì

nh D

ương

Bến

Tre

Bắc

Gia

ngG

ia L

aiH

à Tĩ

nhTi

ền G

iang

Bình

Thu

ậnTP

Hồ

Chí M

inh

Thừa

Thi

ên-

Huế

Vĩnh

Phú

cBà

Rịa

-

Vũng

Tàu

Đồn

g Th

ápĐ

ắk N

ông

Tây

Nin

hQ

uảng

Nam

Vĩnh

Lon

gTh

ái N

guyê

nQ

uảng

Ngã

iĐ

ồng

Nai

Cần

Thơ

Bình

Phư

ớcPh

ú Yê

nN

ghệ

An

Sóc

Trăn

gBạ

c Li

êuKh

ánh

Hoà

An

Gia

ngTu

yên

Qua

ngTh

anh

Hoá

Kiên

Gia

ngPh

ú Th

ọĐ

ắk L

ắkKo

n Tu

mTr

à Vi

nhN

inh

Thuậ

nLâ

m Đ

ồng

Hoà

Bìn

hLạ

ng S

ơnQ

uảng

Nin

hYê

n Bá

iSơ

n La

Lào

Cai

Điệ

n Bi

ênLa

i Châ

uBắ

c Kạ

nH

à G

iang

Cao

Bằng

% of Kinh Ethnicity in PAPI 2017 (PSW) % of Kinh Ethnicity in 2009 Census

APPENDICES149

Figure C2: Age Distribution in 2017 PAPI Sample vs. National Census 2009(excluding respondents aged 70 or above in PAPI sample)

0.19%

0.91%

1.34%

1.30%

2.68%

3.41%

5.41%

6.58%

8.53%

8.96%

10.46%

50.24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Student

Manager/Supervisor

Unemployed

Clerical

Other

Professional

Retired

Homemaker

Household entrepreneur

Non-agricultural, skilled

Non-agricultural, unskilled

Agricultural

0.15%

1.31%

3.70% 10.07%

10.27%

11.35%

13.74%

14.30%

14.02%

12.22%

6.35% 1.25% 1.26%

6.3%

14.2%

13.1%

11.5%

11.0%

10.0%

9.1%

7.4%

5.0%

3.3%

2.6%

2.4%

4.3%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

18-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-75

75+

2009 CENSUS PAPI 2017 PSW

Figure C3: Occupation of 2017 PAPI Respondents (%, PSW)

Figure C4: Education Levels of 2017 PAPI Respondents (%, PSW)

5.88%

13.78%

8.29%

15.88%

24.79%

6.98%

17.72%

0.52%

5.75%

0.35%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

No Formal Education

Incomplete Primary

Complete Primary

Incomplete Secondary

Complete Secondary

Incomplete High School

Complete High School

Some University Education

University Education

Postgraduate Degree

150 PAPI 2017THE VIET NAM PROVINCIAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE INDEX

Figure C5: 2017 PAPI Respondents by Difficulty in Performing Certain Functions

5.38%

2.41%

6.61%

5.71%

0.13%

18.44%

7.98%

14.78%

25.86%

0.56%

76.15%

89.61%

78.48%

68.37%

93.08%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Di�culty in seeing, even if wearing glasses

Di�culty in hearing, even if using a hearing aid

Di�culty in walking or climbing steps

Di�culty in remembering or concentrating(^)

Di�culty in communicating/understanding/being understood*

No di�culty at all Some di�culty A lot of di�culty Cannot do at all

Note: (*) not because of ethnic language; (^) may attribute to old age. Caution in using the data is strongly suggested. Based on Question D611c, “Please let us know if you have any difficulty performing the following functions. Please indicate if you cannot do it at all, or you are having a lot of difficulty in doing it, or some difficulty doing it, or no difficulty at all.

Figure C6: Affiliation of 2017 PAPI Respondents to Associations/Organisations

39.4%24.9%

18.9%10.7%

7.8%7.6%

6.9%5.6%

4.7%4.6%

4.2%4.1%

3.2%2.9%2.8%

2.2%1.5%

1.0%0.9%

0.5%0.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

NoneWomen’s Unions

Farmers' Unions/Agricultural AssociationsParent-Teacher Association

OthersVeterans Unions

The Communist PartySports Clubs

Religious GroupsCharity Groups

Youth UnionsTrade Unions

Cultural/Recreational ClubsProducer Cooperatives

Community-based OrganisationsPublic Interest Groups

Professional AssociationsAlumni Associations

Volunteers GroupsConsumers Associations

Business Associations

Implementing Partners

Co-funding Partners

2011-2017

2009-20212018

2018-2021

Centre for Research and Trainingof the Vietnam Fatherland Front

Centre for Community Support and Development Studies

PAPI2017

The Viet Nam Provincial Governanceand Public Administration Performance Index

Measuring citizens’ experiences

Centre for Research and Trainingof the Vietnam Fatherland Front

Centre for Community Support and Development Studies

United Nations Development Programme

304 Kim Ma, Ha Noi, Viet Nam

Tel: (84 024) 38 500 100

Fax: (84 024) 37 265 520

Email: registry.vn@undp.org

www.vn.undp.org

Centre for Community Support and Development StudiesP717, Block N3, Nguyen Cong TruHai Ba Trung Dist., Ha Noi, Viet NamTel: (84 024) 66 523 846Email: contact@Cecodes.orgwww.cecodes.org

www.papi.org.vn