Rethinking the Centralisation/Decentralisation Debate in Vietnam Studies—an Introduction

Abstract

The starting point for this collection of articles was the Third Interna tional Convention of Asian Scholars (ICAS3), which was held in Sin gapore in August 2003. Through the original call for papers, which was entitled 'Local Politics in Vietnam: Central Regulation or Local Control', contributors to the panel were asked to explore the way in which local politicians mediate the conflicting pressures of central and local, how they win space for themselves, and when they bow to cen tral government and when they do not.1 Underpinning the call for papers was a view, held by this author, that the pendulum had swung too far in terms of a tendency in Vietnam studies to emphasise decentralisation, regional autonomy, localism or local control—to cite the most common ways in which the perceived power of those operating beyond central government is referred to. There are a number of possible reasons why this situation may have arisen but whatever the reasons, decentralisation seems to be fashionable.2 Not to emphasise it risks being accused of naivety, or forgetting the wide gulf which exists between law, or the official statement of things, and reality. One Vietnam scholar of considerable pedigree, the late Douglas Pike, once likened what he referred to as 'geographic regionalism' to caste in India, arguing that one simply cannot understand Vietnamese politics without reference to it.3 Here, clearly was a lesson for the less experienced scholar: neglect regionalism at your peril.