In “The new era - The era of the nation’s rise”, the 2026-2030 period is considered by the Party and the State to be a particularly important phase in Vietnam’s economic and social development.

Mr. Nguyen Hong Son, Vice Chairman of the Central Commission for Policy, Strategy, told the “Establishing a New Growth Model for Vietnam in the 2026-2030 Period, with a Vision to 2045” forum, held by the Institute of Vietnam and World Economics at the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences on July 15, that after nearly 40 years of “Doi Moi” (Economic Renewal), Vietnam has achieved great and historic socio-economic accomplishments. “The economy has maintained a high growth rate, people’s lives have been constantly improved, and the country’s position and prestige in the international arena have been increasingly enhanced,” he added. “However, the pace of growth model innovation has not been as fast or as strong as expected.”

Experts at the forum agreed that the 2026-2030 period must indeed be prioritized with strategic directives for transforming the growth model. The focus should shift from one based merely on increasing productivity, quality, and competitiveness to one driven by science, technology, innovation, and high-quality human resources, meeting international economic integration standards and taking Vietnam to greater heights.

Technology a driving force

Vietnam identifies the digital economy as one of the three pillars in the National Digital Transformation Strategy to 2025, with a Vision to 2030. Professor Tran Tho Dat, Chairman of the Science and Training Council at the National Economics University, said Vietnam possesses several advantages in digital economic development, including political stability, a “golden” population structure with people holding digital skills, and domestic technology enterprises that are leading an innovative startup ecosystem and expanding their international cooperation.

However, Professor Dat also pointed to the challenges facing digital economic development in Vietnam, including the digital divide, unsynchronized institutional and legal frameworks, and the limited level of digital skills and awareness at enterprises. Such issues contribute to low research and development (R&D) investment and a heavy dependence on foreign platforms.

He proposed three scenarios for digital economic growth in Vietnam. In the first, if Vietnam achieves a GDP growth rate of 8 per cent in 2025 and 10 per cent annually from 2026 to 2030, and the digital economy is to account for 20 per cent of GDP in 2025 and 30 per cent in 2030, then the digital economy must grow by 64 per cent in 2025 and by 20 per cent annually to 2030.

In the second scenario, while the GDP growth targets remain the same, meeting the digital economy’s share of 20 per cent of GDP in 2025 would still require 64 per cent growth this year, which is deemed difficult to achieve. Therefore, this scenario suggests abandoning the target of the digital economy’s proportion in GDP of 20 per cent in 2025, and instead focusing on reaching a 30 per cent GDP share annually by 2030.

Finally, in the third scenario, with the same GDP growth targets, the digital economy would need to grow by 19 per cent a year to achieve 30 per cent of GDP by 2030, assuming the 2025 target of 20 per cent is met.

“Regarding orientations and solutions for digital economic development in Vietnam, it is essential to improve institutions and policies to support its growth,” Professor Dat believes. “In particular, focus should be placed on developing modern, synchronized, and secure digital infrastructure, as well as developing digital human resources and digital skills across the entire population. It is also necessary to promote innovation and develop a domestic digital technology ecosystem, thereby narrowing the digital divide between regions and ensuring equal access to the digital economy.”

From another perspective, Mr. Do Tien Thinh, Deputy Director of the National Innovation Center at the Ministry of Finance, emphasized the significance of Resolution No. 57-NQ/TW on breakthroughs in science, technology, innovation, and national digital transformation. “Vietnam has many economic zones, export processing zones, and free trade zones, but no innovation zones,” he added. “International experience shows that an innovation zone is essential to promote the development of science and technology.”

Several areas require focused attention, he continued, including the lack of policy mechanisms for engineers and chief engineers. “We need to change our approach - recruit first, then develop projects and cost estimates - rather than following the traditional model of preparing estimates and project proposals before recruitment,” he proposed. “We must also consider the issue of employment and unemployment in the age of AI. At the same time, the role of the State must evolve to act as a creator, creating new spaces that foster demand for science and technology.”

Learning from international experience

To achieve breakthrough growth, Vietnam cannot continue to rely on its old growth model but must undertake a comprehensive transformation in thinking, institutions, and actions. In particular, learning lessons from the growth models of other countries is essential.

Drawing from international experience, Dr. Le Xuan Sang, Deputy Director of the Vietnam Institute of Economics, said that only five countries and territories have experienced sustained periods of economic boom, with growth rates exceeding 10 per cent for five years or more: Japan (1955-1972), South Korea (1960s-1970s), Taiwan, China, and Singapore. Notably, only Taiwan has demonstrated relatively sustainable growth and high resilience, with global and regional crises having minimal impact. Its macro-economic, business, and social environments remain relatively stable, despite a recent slowdown.

According to Dr. Sang, Vietnam and Taiwan share several similarities and strategic interests in their relations with major powers, as well as in their efforts towards deep integration into global supply chains. Both economies are medium-sized, highly open, and culturally, socially, and structurally aligned in terms of development.

While certain differences remain, such as development levels, corporate structures, and policy approaches, these distinctions present opportunities for mutual complementarity and support. Taiwan’s growth model is often regarded as the most harmonious, with the fewest shortcomings. It features a flexible combination of innovation, macro-economic stability, and effective governance capacity. “This is a model worth referencing, learning from, and adapting appropriately in Vietnam’s process of reforming its growth model,” Dr. Sang emphasized. “Beyond technical policy design, Taiwan’s experience is also valuable in terms of balanced development thinking and institutional organization, supporting businesses in a practical, transparent, and sustainable manner. Vietnam can also draw lessons from South Korea, China, and Singapore but must avoid the mistakes that have led many countries into the ‘middle-income trap’.”

According to figures from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Taiwan’s Gross National Product (GNP) grew at an average annual rate of 8.8 per cent from 1953 to 1986, while GNP per capita increased by 6.2 per cent over the period. In 1971, Taiwan’s per capita income was about 8 per cent of that of the US, rising to 39 per cent by 1991. Manufacturing income grew at an average of 15 per cent a year between 1960 and 1980, during its industrialization phase.

Mr. Nguyen Ba Hung, the ADB’s Chief Economist in Vietnam, agreed that Taiwan represents a model of “miraculous” yet sustainable growth. He highlighted that its policies and institutions were rooted in the industrialization of agriculture and rural areas, followed by expansion into export production. The State and State-owned enterprises (SOEs) played a central role in promoting and disseminating science and technology. Unlike other models, Taiwan did not favor large private enterprises; instead, it focused on supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through healthy competition, both domestically and internationally. Its administrative model is also recognized for its professionalism, efficiency, and insulation from the business sector.

In the case of South Korea, Mr. Hung noted that the country’s economic policy is export-oriented. The government demonstrated strong capacity in planning and implementing policies, with selective investment and targeted allocation of resources to large private corporations (chaebols) to drive exports. These chaebols played a leading role, receiving significant support from the government to meet export targets, while SMEs primarily served as supporting actors within the broader industrial ecosystem.

“Vietnam needs to promote healthy competition and create opportunities for the development of all economic sectors,” he proposed. “Performance-based support programs should be implemented, with a focus on research and development, regardless of business type. Vietnam must also encourage a startup-friendly environment across all industries to foster economic diversity. At the same time, the country must boost its international competitiveness through technology acquisition, especially for SOEs, while developing private enterprises linked to supply and distribution networks. It is also essential to improve the international competitiveness of service industries driven by technology and innovation, and to gradually invest in basic research to align with global technological advancements.”