However, a realistic assessment shows that, despite its considerable potential and the country's growing development needs, the private sector has yet to fully realise its role. Many enterprises continue to face limitations in corporate governance, competitiveness and their ability to participate more deeply in global value chains.

In recent years, the Party and the State have introduced a series of resolutions and policies aimed at supporting businesses, removing obstacles and simplifying thousands of administrative procedures and business conditions to foster a more favourable business environment.

Nevertheless, n reality, many new difficulties and institutional and policy obstacles still arise in daily production and business activities. Many investment projects have been delayed not because of insufficient capital or weak management, but due to prolonged administrative procedures, overlapping regulations, inconsistent interpretations among regulatory agencies and a risk-averse mindset among some public officials.

As a result, applications often have to pass through multiple layers of approval and consultation. These institutional bottlenecks therefore stem not only from legal documents themselves but also from the way policies are implemented and from shortcomings in public administration.

To address these issues, Viet Nam needs to ensure that its legal framework is clear, consistent and uniformly enforced across both central and local authorities, preventing unnecessary procedures and reducing officials' fear of taking responsibility.

Reform efforts should focus on areas that have the greatest influence on business investment decisions, including land administration, planning, investment approval, construction, taxation, credit access and dispute resolution. Unnecessary or outdated business conditions that increase compliance costs should be decisively eliminated. In addition, regulatory reform should move beyond prior administrative approval towards post-inspection mechanisms, shifting from direct administrative intervention to governance based on standards, technical regulations and data-driven management.

Digital transformation in public administration must also be understood in its true sense. Simply moving paperwork online while maintaining the same procedures, requirements and administrative mindset will only reduce a few manual steps without easing the overall regulatory burden on businesses.

Government agencies should be responsible for sharing and reusing existing data. Businesses should not be required to repeatedly submit the same information to multiple authorities.

Meaningful reform will remain elusive unless accountability among public officials is strengthened. Mechanisms are therefore needed to protect officials who are willing to innovate, take responsibility and act in the public interest, while those who evade responsibility, shift accountability or create unnecessary obstacles for citizens and businesses must be dealt with firmly.

Equally important, every piece of feedback from businesses, business associations and experts should be regarded as valuable input for improving public policy, rather than merely another petition requiring a formal response.

Only through such an approach can institutional reform move beyond slogans or the simple reduction of administrative procedures and processing times. More importantly, it will build the confidence businesses need to invest boldly, innovate, expand their operations, grow into stronger enterprises and contribute alongside the nation to a new phase of development.