As clearly established in Resolution No.6 of the 12th Central Committee and further affirmed in the 13th National Congress Document, this model demonstrates the political determination in administrative reform towards serving the people and developing a sustainable socio-economy.
However, after the pilot phase and expanded implementation, practice has shown that in some localities, there have been many shortcomings: overlapping authority between levels, the organisation and operation of the apparatus in some places still being inconsistent, not achieving the desired efficiency, the mentality of some officials still wavering due to unreasonable transfers, and the quality of public services not seeing significant improvement. In this situation, Conclusion No.178-KL/TW (dated July 17, 2025) of the Politburo requires “rectification from the roots”, especially in three key areas: personnel, legality, and social trust.
Difficulties and obstacles remain
Since July 1, 2025, the whole country has officially operated a two-tier local government model with the number of provincial-level administrative units reduced from 63 to 34 and more than 10,000 commune-level administrative units reduced to about 3,321.
A typical example is Quang Ninh — one of the first localities to pilot a model of government without district level organisation, reorganising administrative units associated with digital transformation and administrative reform. Quang Ninh has promoted the integration of online public services by connecting inter-level data and digitising administrative records, contributing to shortening the time to process administrative procedures by about 30-40% compared to before.
Da Nang and Binh Duong are also leading localities in digital transformation and perfecting personnel at the commune/ward level. In Binh Duong, starting from July 1, 2025, 36 new communes and wards will operate under the two-level government model, with 447 administrative procedures in 13 fields transferred from the district level to the commune/ward level. Of which, 284 procedures previously performed by the district level are now directly processed at the commune/ward level at 36 newly established commune/ward-level public administrative service centres.
These localities have not only reorganised their apparatus but also made a strong shift in administrative thinking towards service, reducing intermediate levels, and increasing autonomy and flexibility for the grassroots level. This shows that when the two-tier government model is implemented synchronously with a roadmap and accompanied by digital transformation, administrative procedure reform, and reasonable personnel arrangement, it will promote practical effectiveness in state management.
However, in some localities, the implementation of the two-level government model still has confusion, difficulties and obstacles, especially issues regarding human resources and apparatus organisation. In addition, the mentality of waiting and relying on the coordination of higher levels still exists, causing the commune-level apparatus to operate in a lack of initiative and creativity.
The monitoring mechanism between levels is also unclear, easily leading to the situation of “the superiors not listening to the subordinates” or “fighting for power, shirking responsibility”. The lack of specific criteria for decentralisation and performance evaluation at the commune level in the new model is making the operation process confusing and unstable.
Furthermore, a notable shortcoming is that some places are still experiencing a state of social anxiety and lack of confidence in the effectiveness of the model due to signs of stagnation in handling administrative procedures. Many commune officials do not clearly understand their scope of authority and are not fully trained in professional skills, leading to the situation of avoiding responsibility or handling things mechanically and inflexibly.
The problem of connecting and communicating data between the commune level and specialised agencies at the provincial level also increases the situation of delayed settlement, causing inconvenience to people and businesses. In practice, people in some localities still have to travel many times and contact many levels, which is contrary to the “one-stop, one-time” goal of the modern e-government model.
Three key pillars
The practice of implementing the two-tier local government model shows that, in order to effectively promote the Party’s correct policy, it is impossible to stop at restructuring the administrative organisation form but requires a “rectification from the root”, with the three key pillars — human resources, legality, and social trust — playing a decisive role.
In fact, commune-level personnel are the “extended arm” of the state apparatus in approaching and serving the people. Therefore, the standardisation of job titles and positions at the commune level needs to be given top priority, ensuring that each cadre has a specific position, a clear job description and an evaluation process linked to actual public service products. In addition, the work of transferring and rotating cadres needs to be comprehensively reviewed, it is necessary to properly assess individual capacity and the specific needs of each locality to have appropriate transfers, avoiding unnecessary disruption.
At the same time, the need to improve digital capacity and public ethics becomes urgent in the context of digital government becoming an inevitable trend. Commune-level officials cannot fulfil their tasks well if they lack knowledge of e-governance, are proficient in using administrative software, or do not update new regulations on public services. Training and development programs need to focus on practical skills, public ethics, and service culture while avoiding being too theoretical.
Reality in many localities shows that, despite the merger and adjustment of administrative units, budget allocation is still in a state of confusion and passivity. Budget allocation to the commune level does not have clear regulations on rates, procedures, and decision-making authority, causing many localities to have difficulty in ensuring regular operating expenses. To overcome this, it is necessary to promptly issue inter-sectoral regulations on the budget allocation mechanism to the commune level, ensuring proactiveness, clarity, fairness, and control.
At the same time, establishing a cross-checking and monitoring mechanism between levels is a necessary solution to increase transparency and prevent the situation of shirking or abuse of power. Instead of having the provincial people’s committee make decisions and inspect subordinates, there should be independent, interdisciplinary working groups or the participation of the Fatherland Front and mass organisations in monitoring to increase objectivity in assessment and inspection.
Another important issue is to provide specific guidance on the functions and tasks of commune-level professional agencies in the new model. After the reorganisation, many communes/wards had their professional departments cut, but they had not yet issued documents to replace regulations on the coordination mechanism with provincial departments and branches. This created overlapping work and unclear responsibilities, resulting in people having to go to many places to handle the same procedure. Therefore, it is necessary to promptly review and update the guiding circulars of the Ministry of Home Affairs and related ministries and branches, ensuring consistency between theory and practical operation.
Promoting efficiency in line with the spirit of reform
In order for the two-level local government model to promote efficiency in line with the spirit of administrative reform, it is necessary to synchronously deploy groups of solutions from the central to the grassroots level, ensuring three pillars: correct policy, appropriate organisation, and people’s consensus. In particular, the strict implementation of the direction in Conclusion No. 178-KL/TW (dated July 17, 2025) is a key requirement.
First of all, it is necessary to urgently implement the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Law on Organisation of Local Government in the direction of clearly defining the authority, responsibility, and coordination relationship between provincial and commune-level governments. Along with that, issue documents guiding the implementation of the budget mechanism, supervision, and staff evaluation process in the new model, especially at the commune level, where there is great pressure on both tasks and expectations of serving the people.
Provincial and municipal authorities that are implementing the two-level government model need to proactively review the overall implementation situation. Publicity and transparency of difficulties and shortcomings are prerequisites for the Central Government to have a basis to amend policies to be closer to reality. To increase professionalism in operating the apparatus, it is necessary to promote training and fostering of cadres according to job positions, especially digital skills, public administration management skills, and public ethics.
Another bottleneck is the ineffective coordination between levels, departments and offices in the same administrative system. Therefore, it is necessary to build a clear coordination mechanism between provincial people’s committees and specialised agencies as well as between commune-level authorities and mass organisations, while ensuring "one job - one focal point - one responsible person". Additionally, it is necessary to strengthen accountability, inspection, and supervision in the direction of publicity and binding sanctions.
Specifically, building trust and creating high determination in the whole society is a fundamental factor that determines the success of the two-level government model. Therefore, communication work needs to go one step ahead. It does not stop at “persuasion”, but needs to be transformed into “dialogue”, creating a forum for officials and people to exchange and respond. Listening to social criticism needs to be institutionalised as a mandatory channel in the policy planning and adjustment process. The Fatherland Front and socio-political organisations need to be assigned the task of supervising the organisation and selection of officials at the grassroots level, both to ensure democracy and to detect potential violations early.
Commune-level authorities need to make efforts to demonstrate their prestige through specific actions: quickly handling administrative procedures, publicly responding to people, and making the resource allocation process more transparent. When people feel the impartial and responsible service, the two-level government model will truly come into life and be sustainably supported.
Implementing the two-tier local government model in provinces and centrally run cities is a step in the right direction in the administrative reform process, in line with the requirements of building a streamlined, effective, and efficient apparatus. However, no matter how correct a policy may be, it cannot be successful if the implementation is not synchronous or is too far from reality.
Some of the above difficulties and shortcomings are mainly due to the way of implementation, organisation and operation in practice. If not handled from the root — from legality and human resources to creating high determination in implementation — the implementation of the model in many places will easily fall into the situation of “right policy, wrong way of doing”.
To clear bottlenecks and promote the actual effectiveness of the two-tier local government model, it is necessary to have the synchronous, impartial, and responsible participation of the entire political system, from the central to local levels, to both perfect the institution and strengthen the trust of cadres and people in the grassroots government. This is the foundation for reform that is not only reasonable but also popular.
