Public value creation in Viet Nam in a new stage of development : From theory to implementation capacity

Public value creation in Viet Nam in a new stage of development: From theory to implementation capacity.

Abstract: Public value theory shifts the central question of public governance from how many tasks public authorities have completed to what value citizens and society actually receive. Drawing selectively on Moore, Bozeman, Benington, Stoker, Bryson, and the literature on co-production and value co-creation in public services, this article proposes a Viet Nam-adapted conception: public value comprises collectively meaningful outcomes and standards generated through the legitimate use of public authority and resources together with societal participation; it responds to the lawful and legitimate needs, rights, and interests of the People while safeguarding equity, inclusion, and long-term sustainability. An analysis of Viet Nam during 2020-2026-covering the COVID-19 response, tuition-fee exemption, the policy roadmap toward hospital-fee exemption, the elimination of temporary and dilapidated housing, schools in border areas, and the Hue-S platform—shows strengths in strategic direction, system-wide mobilization, and community solidarity. It also reveals gaps between policy intent and realized outcomes, digitization and user experience, and task completion and social impact. The article therefore recommends institutionalizing a public-value lens throughout the policy cycle, reforming implementation governance and civil-servant evaluation, strengthening co-creation capacity, advancing responsible data governance, and ensuring digital inclusion.

Keywords:public value; public value creation; public value governance; co-creation; implementation capacity; digital transformation; Viet Nam.

Introduction

In public governance, a policy may be promulgated by the competent authority, a program may disburse funds according to plan, and n administrative procedure may be within the prescribed time limit; however, these outcomes do not automatically mean that public value has been created. If citizens still have to make repeated visits, vulnerable groups face access barriers, unreasonable social costs are shifted onto users, public trust declines, or benefits are concentrated among only a small group, administrative efficiency may increase while public value remains low. This represents a crucial distinction between task-based management and outcome-oriented governance that yields meaningful outcomes for society.

The concept of "public value" was introduced by Mark H. Moore, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School. He argued that public value consists of benefits created by the state and government for society, recognized by citizens as meaningful, legitimate, and worthy of public resource investment. Public value also means making people's lives better, society more equitable, trust in government higher, and social development more sustainable. In other words, public value encompasses key values: efficiency, equity, trust, and development.

Over the past three decades, this theory has expanded from a focus on the strategy of public manager to network governance, service co-creation, and public service transformation (Alford & O'Flynn, 2009; Bryson et al., 2014; OECD, 2019; Osborne, 2018). Nonetheless, public value remains a debated concept. Who has the authority to define what is valuable? How should conflicts be resolved between efficiency and equity, short-term benefits and long-term sustainability, or the desires of the majority and the rights of minorities? Can public value be measured with a single index? These questions become even more critical when applying the theory to a specific practical context.

In Viet Nam, the requirement to place the People at the center and regard them as the goal, driving force, and main actor; while linking accountability to outcomes and implementation discipline to public satisfaction, has been emphasized in the Documents of the 14th National Party Congress (Communist Party of Viet Nam, 2026). Concurrently, national digital transformation, the two-tier local government organization model, decentralization, delegation of power, and large-scale social policies are transforming how the State creates and distributes value. These developments providefavorable conditions for the public value approach to become a reform lens. However, if this concept is used merely as a new label for achievements in  state management, the true meaning and value of public value theory will be diminished.

This paper focuses on four questions: What is public value and how can it be conceptualized in the Vietnamese context? What requirements does the new context impose on public value creation? What capacities and gaps are revealed by Viet Nam's practice during the -2026 period? And how should institutions, implementation approaches, and officials’ capabilities be adjusted? The study primarily employs a selective review of foundational research, policy document analysis, and comparison across a number of practical s. The aim of the paper is not to build an exhaustive catalog of all possible public values, but rather to propose a concise analytical framework applicable to policy design, implementation, and evaluation in Viet Nam.

1. Public value and analytical framework appropriate to Viet Nam

1.1. jor approaches in the international literature

In his work Creating Public Value, Moore (1995) focuses on the strategic responsibility of public managers in using assets and power entrusted by the public. A public strategy is capable of creating value when the three elements of the “strategic triangle” are aligned: a value proposition that is substantive; one that is legitimate and receives public support; and one that has the operational capacity to implement it. Moore's fundamental contribution is shifting the “end point” of public management from completing a process to creating outcomes that society considers valuable. This approach also affirms that citizens are not merely customers choosing services but citizens with rights, obligations, and a voice in the use of public power.

Alford and O'Flynn (2009) show that the concept of public value has been used in multiple senses: a strategic model for public managers, a normative framework concerning what is desirable in social life, a means of evaluating the performance of public organizations, or a governance model. This multiplicity of meanings has facilitated the diffusion of the theory spread but also creates a risk: if every positive outcome is labeled public value, the concept loses its ability to analytical distinctiveness. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the actor determining value, the process of establishing legitimacy, the desired outcome, and the associated costs or adverse consequences.

Benington and Moore (2011) broaden the understanding of public value from “what the public values” to “what adds value to the public space.” What the public desires at a given time may not necessarily protect long-term interests, minority rights, or constitutional norms. Public values is therefore formed through social deliberation and subject to validation against public principles such as the rule of law, equity, transparency, integrity, and sustainability. This approach helps avoid equating public values with immediate satisfaction or the opinions of the majority.

From a different perspective, Bozeman (2002) studies “public values” and “public value failure.” While Moore asks how managers can  create value, Bozeman is concerned with what norms society needs and when those norms are compromised, even where the market operates efficiently. Public value failure can occur when mechanisms for expressing and aggregating interests are weakened; benefits are captured by privileged groups; public information is inadequate; policy time horizons is too short; or commercialization threatens essential rights and subsistence needs. This contribution serves as a reminder that the actions of the State do not automatically create public value. Policies may add value to one group but deplete value for another.

The development of network governance has changed assumptions about who creates public value. Stoker (2006) views public value governance as as an approach to organizing action suitable for interdependent societies, where the State cannot solve complex problems if it relies solely on linear commands. Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg (2014) further develop the theoretical framework of public value governance, emphasizing the role of democratic institutions, shared leadership, , cross-sectoral and cross-boundary collaboration. Public value may be initiated by government agencies but is often created by a multi-actor network involving the State, businesses, social organizations, communities, and citizens.

Ostrom's (1996) theory of co-production and Osborne's (2018) public service approach further clarify the central role of service user. The value of a service does not end at the point when the public authority "delivers" an output. Rather, value is formed during the process of people using it, through interaction and integration of services with their capabilities and circumstances. A multi-functional public service portal may not necessarily create value if the elderly cannot log in; a ly built school may not fully realize its value if it lacks teachers, transportation, and conditions to maintain learning. Therefore, citizens are active participants in creating value from the stage of service operation onward, rather than passive beneficiaries at the end of the process.

Meynhardt (2009) adds a dimension of experience and socio-psychological perception: value becomes public value only when the impact of an organization is evaluated by people in relation to basic needs and common life. This perspective explains why the same policy can be perceived differently by different social groups. It also warns against measuring solely by the quantity of output or the self-assessment of the service-providing organizations.

From the above approaches, five areas of convergence can be drawn. First, public value is broader than economic efficiency; it includes social effectiveness and the norms governing the exercise of the public authority. Second, public value is not unilaterally declared by state agencies, but its outcomes must be based on legitimate grounds, reflected in and verified in social life. Third, the State plays a special role because it s public power and public resources, but outcomes and value are increasingly formed through co-creation with the participation of multiple actors in society. Fourth, public value always entails choices and trade-offs; costs, unforeseen consequences, and the distribution of benefits across different groups must be taken into account. Fifth, citizens are both participants and beneficiaries of public value.

1.2. Conceptualization ofpublic value in the Vietnamese context

Applying this theory to Viet Nam requires placing it within the principles of Party leadership, State management, and People's ownership; the goal of rapid and sustainable development; the protection of human rights and civil rights; the safeguarding of independence, sovereignty, and political and social stability; and the building of a socialist rule of law state and a service-oriented public administration. The environment of delegation here is constituted by the Party's leadership orientation, the Constitution and laws, representative institutions, social oversight and critical feedback mechanisms, and the participation and evaluation of the people. These distinctive institutional characteristics do not replace the validation of public values but rather they y the legitimate basis, strategic goals, and responsibilities of the political system.

The Resolution of the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of Viet Nam affirmed the need to “continue to strongly renew thinking, promote strategic breakthroughs, create a new development ecosystem, and uphold the principle of achieving stability through development and promoting development through stability, while constantly ing the lives and happiness of the people; focus on comprehensively and synchronously improving  institutions for rapid and sustainable national development, in which political is are pivotal, economic is are cental, and other institutions are important” and to “strongly promote the role of the people as the main actor, socialist democracy, the strength of the people and the great national unity. Thoroughly uphold the principle that "the people are the foundation," the people are the actors and the center of the cause of renovation, construction and protection of the Fatherland. All policies and guidelines of the Party and the State must genuinely proceed from the needs, aspirations, legitimate rights and interests of the people; respect for, assurance of, and ion of  human rights, civil rights, together with the happiness and satisfaction of the people ; must serve as both the measure and goal to strive for.”

Accordingly, public value may be conceptualized as follows: Public values consists of outcomes and norms of shared value, created through the legitimate exercise of public power, the use of public  r, and the participation of actors in society; meeting the needs, aspirations, rights, and legitimate interests of the people; contributing to the development of a prosperous and happy country; ensuring equity and inclusiveness, strengthening trust, and is capable of sustaining shared value over time..

This cualization has five implications. First , public value encompasses values and outcomes such as safety, health, knowledge, livelihoods, quality of life, living environment, and development opportunities; and it ialso linked to the process of forming public value, such as the rule of law, transparency, participation, procedural fairness, integrity, and accountability. Second , the State plays a role in in enabling value creation, mobilizing resources, and providing the ultimate guarantee, but is not the sole entity creating public value. Third, citizens’ views and satisfaction of are important evidence, bmust be considered alongside rights, long-term interests, and the interests o groups with limited voice Fourth, core values and outcomes must bassessed in terms of final outcome after considering public costs, compliance costs, dve impacts, risks, and unforeseen consequences. Fifth, public value is sustainable only when there is capacity for continuous maintenance, adaptation, and learning.

The concept of "national public values" in tpaper refers to a system of public values constructed at the national level, linked to the nation, and reflecting the common goals and development conditions of the country. Its substantive content includes independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity; security and safety; development and self-reliance the rule of law, equity, and human rights; twell-being, happiness, and development opportunities of the people; solidarity and social trust; the environment and sustainability; and national prosperity, happiness, and standing.

1.3. Public value creation and the public value cration capacity

Public value creationrefers to state action that generates value for society. It is not an isolated activity occurring after policy enactment, but a continuous process extending from problem identification, priority setting, institutional and policy design, mobilization support and resources, and effective implementation, to outcome measurement, feedback integration, and policy adjustment. In Viet Nam's context, this process occurs across the entire political system: strategic leadership from the Party; institutionalization, management, and implementation by the State; oversight, critique, and aggregation by the Viet Nam Fatherland Front and socio-political organizations; alongside participation from businesses, communities, and the people.

Public value creation capacity is therefore a systemic capacity. Six constituent capacities can be identified: (1) assessing and forecasting social needs, early detection of gaps and potential risks; (2) designing public values and responding based on data and evidence; (3) establishing legitimacy, conducting consultation, and building consensus; (4) mobilizing and coordinating resources within and outside the State; (5) data-driven implementation, adapting to differences among actors, localities, target groups,  and situations that may arise; (6) measuring value and core outcomes, learning and accountability. These six capacities provide the bridge between political goals, institutions and the outcomes that people actually experienceand benefit from.

2. Context and requirements for public value creation in Viet Nam

First, Viet Nam enters a new stage of development  with higher expectations regarding the quality of development and the well-being of the People. The Documents of the 14th National Congress require that responsibility be linked to results and that implementation discipline be associated with the satisfaction of the People (Communist Party of Viet Nam, 2026). This provides political grounding to shift focus from reporting work volume to assessing achieved outcomes, demonstrated through concrete impacts on citizens and society. Economic growth, investment, and digitalization are essential, but their value must ultimately be reflected in tangible improvements in opportunities, income, health, education, safety, equity, and public trust.

Second, science, technology, innovation, digital transformation, and artificial intelligence are restructuring the relationship between the State and citizens. Resolution No. 57-NQ/TW designates citizens and businesses as the center, actors, main resources, and driving forces, while the State acts as leader, promoter, and facilitator for science, technology, innovation, and digital transformation (Politburo, 2024). Technology lowers transaction costs, enables services to be delivered irrespective of administrative boundaries, personalizes support, and enhances forecasting capacity. However, digital value does not appear merely from transferring paper-based procedures onto digital interfaces. Inaccurate data, poorly interconnected platforms, difficult-to-use interfaces, or or services are accessible only to those with appropriate devices and skills, digital transformation may create additional layers of inequality.

Third, the two-tier local government structure effective on July 1, 2025, streamlines administrative layers, transferring significant authority to provincial and commune levels. Commune-level administration becomes the direct point of contact with citizens and an implementation-oriented level of governance responsible for addressing a wider range of important and essential issues. While this increases responsiveness, it imposes immense pressure on integration, data handling, coordination, and accountability. Decentralization creates value only when authority is accompanied by adequate resources, capacities, and control mechanisms; otherwise, institutional gaps may be transformed into burdens at the level of government closest to citizens.

Fourth, public issues are increasingly complex, transcending sectoral and jurisdictional boundaries. Epidemics, natural disasters, population aging, pollution, non-traditional security threats, and employment in the age of artificial intelligence cannot be solved by a single y or through ad-hoc responses. This requires the State to transition from case-by-case coordination to integrated governance, network governance-, lifecycle-based governance, and problem-oriented governance built around common goals, shared data, and clearly defined responsibilities.

Fifth, societal expectations are rising rapidly while public resources remain limited. Citizens compare their experiences of public service with those offered by the private sector while demanding that the State protect equity and rights that markets cannot guarantee on their own. The resulting requirement is to generate more value per unit of public s without sacrificing equity, accessibility, or long-term quality. A strong government in the new new stage of development is defined not by the scale of its power, but by its capability to transform entrusted authority into outcomes of shared value.

Against this background, the application of public value theory in Viet Nam s five fundamental transitions in public value creation: moving from inputs and outputs to outcomes and impacts; from standardized provision to responsiveness to differentiated needs; from the State acting on behalf of society to the State leading processes of co-creation; from process digitalization to citizen journey redesign; and from annual internal assessment to accountability for public value, core outcomes, and sustainability.

3. Public value creation practices in Viet Nam during the period 2020-2026

3.1. Prominent Highlights

COVID-19 prevention and control demonstrates the capacity to create value in an emergency and unprecedented situation.. 

Public , first and foremost, lies in protecting lives, health whilemaintaining the essential conditions for the functioning of society. The initial response may have been slow and inevitably limited due to the unprecedented circumstances. However, the vaccination campaign was implemented at a rapid pace and on a large scale. By the end of 2022, the World Health Organization recognized Viet Nam as having nearly 100% coverage for the primary dose and belonging to the group of countries with high vaccination rates (World Health Organization, 2022). Mobile vaccination teams reaching the homes of the elderly and persons with disabilities who could not access healthcare facilities provide a clear example of equity in access (World Health Organization, 2022). This result is linked to centralized leadership, multi-sectoral coordination, clear division of responsibilities between levels of government, and rapid mobilization of resources through a whole-society approach (World Health Organization, 2020).

From the perspective of public value theory, success cannot be msimply by the number of vaccine doses administered. The value lies in prioritizing at-risk groups, restoring social activities, strengthening response capabilities, and adapting and improving after each event. Simultaneously, the pandemic alsohighlighted the need to balance public health protection with rights, livelihoods, education, and mental health; and between rapid decision-making and transparency and accountability. A crucial lesson is that in a crisis, legitimacy and trust are integral parts of the implementation capacity rather than merely supplementary factors.

Education and health policies have gradually sed from conditional support toward broader guaranteed access. 

Resolution No. 217/2025/QH15 stipulates tuition fee exemption for preschool children, primary and secondary school students, and learners in general education pat public educational institutions; while providing tuition fee support for corresponding groups of learners in private and non-public educational institutions from the 2025-2026 school year (National Assembly, 2025). The public value of the policy lies in reducing financial barriers, expanding learning opportunities, and sharing the cost of nurturing human resources between families and the State. Utilizing data to eliminate the need for learners to apply for exemptions and support also demonstrates the principle of proactive service provision and reduces compliance costs (Government, 2025).

In healthcare, Resolution No. 72-NQ/TW of 2025 sets the objective of gradually implementing free hospital services, starting with social policy beneficiaries, vulnerable groups, low-income individuals, and priority groups within the scope of health insurance benefits (Political Bureau, 2025). The Resolution also provides policy direction and clearly defines the policy roadmap to implement free hospital services for the entire population. The expected public value is significant, but its true value is established only when entitlements are guaranteed by sustainable policies, the primary healthcare system has sufficient capacity and quality that does not deteriorate, access procedures are simple, and costs do not shift to expenses outside the scope of insurance. This case demonstrates that equity of access must go hand in hand with service delivery y capacity and fiscal sustainability.

The program to eliminate temporary and dilapidated housing clearly illustrates a mechanism of co-creation. 

By August 2025, tViet Nam had completed the elimination of 334,234 temporary and dilapidated houses; mobilizing over 24.7 trillion VND from social contributions and more than 2.7 million working days, with the participation of the State, the Viet Nam Fatherland Front, the armed forces, businesses, communities, and beneficiary households themselves (Government Electronic Information Portal, 2025). The direct value created is safe housing; the broader value is dignity, family stability, resilience, and social trust. Whole-of-society resource mobilization expanded operational capacity beyond the limits of the state budget.

However, a completed house is merely the foundation for secure and stable living. Sustainable value depends on livelihoods, infrastructure, essential services, disaster resilience, athe prevention of households falling back into poverty. This clearly illustrates the difference between program outputs and policy long-term outcomes. If the measurement system only focuses on the number of houses completed, it will overlook the most crucial value after handover.

Investing in multi-level boarding schools in border communes combines educational values, territorial equity, and national security. 

As of June 2026, 229 schools had broken ground in border communes and wards, of which 108 broke ground in 2025 and 121 broke ground in 2026 (Government Electronic Information Portal, 2026). These facilities are expected to be inaugurated in time for the 2026–2027 school year. The policy is intended not only to build physical infrastructure but also to narrow educational disparities, improve the quality of local human resources, improve the lives of local communities, and strengthen border areas.

The public value of this pshould be assessed in terms of children’s ability to attend school and remain in education, teacher quality, boarding safety, learning outcomes, cultural appropriateness, and post-education opportunities. If facilities are completed but lack the human resources required for operation or are not connected to families and communities, the potential value will not be fully converted into actual value. Construction ishould therefore be governed as part of an educational-service ecosystem, not as a single, stand-alone construction project.

Digital transhas opened up a data-driven co-creation approach. 

According to the 2024 United NationsE-Government Survey, Viet Nam ranks 71st out of 193 countries in tE-Government Development Index, a 15-place increase compared to 2022 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2024). This progress reflects the development of infrastructure, online services, and the digital capacity of the State. However, rankings and the number of new services measure only the conditions for value creation; ultimate value must be reflected in time, cost savings, accessibility, decision quality, and users’ level of trust.

The Hue-S platform is a nexample. By early 2026, its field reporting system had received and processed over 183,000 reports, achieving a processing rate of over 98% and a satisfaction rate of over 92%, according to figures published by the Hue City People’s Committee (Hue City People's Committee, 2026). Citizens participate as "social sensors," providing information on the ground; the local government designs the process for receiving, categorizing, processing, publicly disclosing results, and accumulating data over time. The value lies not solely in the application but in the closed feedback loop and the discipline of coordination. Technology expands the government's perceptive capacity, while trust is built when reports lead to verifiable action.

3.2. Gaps that need to be addressed

The above practices show that Viet Nam has three outstanding strengths in public value creation: the capacity to set strategic goals at the national level; the capacity to mobilize the whole political system and social resources once clear priorities are set; and a tradition of solidarity and mutual support that provides a foundation for the co-creation of public value. Many policies have become more strongly oriented toward disadvantaged groups and the quality of user experience. However, the key capacities required for public value creation have not yet become a consistent factor embedded in governance design.

Firstly, the concept of public value has not yet been institutionalized as a mandatory requirement in policy design and evaluation. Policy documents still tend to focus on political and legal basis, tasks,, budget, timelines, and outputs; they rarely clarify priority values, the groups that benefit and bear costs, value conflicts, unforeseen consequences, and mechanisms for measuring post-implementation impacts. Therefore, policies may be sound in its overall orientation but their value may diminish during implementation.

Secondly, implementation governance remains fragmented. Citizen issues often cut across multiple agencies ies, yet responsibilities are organized according to separate functional mandates. Units may complete individual tasks, but final outcome may still be delayed or disrupted. The two-tier local government structure intensifies the need for connected processes, shared data, and end-to-end accountability , replacing the practice of transferring case files from one focal point to another.

Thirdly, the evaluation mechanism still leans towards task completion levels and on-time performance. The Ministry of Home Affairs reported that the SIPAS score for 2025 reached 83.09%, a decrease of 0.78 percentage points compared to the 2024 benchmark; while the average PAR Index for ministries and ministerial-level agencies reached 87.20% and for provinces and cities reached 89.96%, both the highest levels ever (Ministry of Home Affairs reported, 2026). This divergence is an important signal: reforms in processes and organization do not automatically translate into better user experiences. A deeper analysis is needed based on the service journey, population groups, and types of issues, rather than relying solely on average scores.

Fourth, co-creation appears mainly in campaigns or pilot initiatives and has not yet become a routine mode of operation throughout the policy cycle. Consultations often occur late after policy options have solidified, and feedback is not always accompanied by an obligation to explain whether, and why, it has or has not been incorporated. While social resources are effectively mobilized, participation rights in problem definition, policy design, and value creation oversight need expansion.

Fifth, digital transformation risks generate new forms of "public value failure." Online services reduce costs for tech-savvy groups but increase difficulties for the elderly, persons with disabilities, individuals with limited digital skills, or those those living in areas with poor connectivity. Data inaccuracies, complex authentication requirements, lack of support channels, and data privacy risks can erode trust. Digital inclusion must be designed in from the outset, rather than treated as a remedial measure after platforms have already become operational..

Sixth, workforce capacities are uneven relative to emerging requirements. Civil servants may understand regulations but lack skills needed to analyze complex problems, design services around user journeys, data analytics, network coordination, or impact evaluation. Risk aversion and responsibility avoidance restrict controlled experimentation. When human resource systems primarily reward procedural safety, motivation to create additional public value is suppressed.

4. Recommendations for strengthening public value creation capacity

4.1. Institutionalizing the public value lens in the policy cycle

Every policy proposal, target program, public investment project, and service reform plan should have a concise “public value statement” that answers at least five questions: what substantive societal problem needs to be solved; which values are prioritized and on what basis; who benefits, who may bear costs or be left behind, and how they will be supported; what capacity and support are needed for implementation; and how  the value, core outcomes, and value will be measured and sustained. This statement should be accompanied by an impact assessment report, implementation plan, and budget, avoiding mere formality and impracticality.

For policies involving major value conflicts, the policy options and trade-offs must be publicly disclosed. For example, waiving or subsidizing service fees should be analyzed simultaneously in terms of equity, quality, fiscal sustainability, and resulting behavior. Digital policies should assess the impact on privacy, groups with limited digital skills, and the availability of alternative access channels. This approach moves value choices out of the realm of “technical default assumptions” and places them within the proper space of political, legal, and social responsibility.

4.2. Transforming measurement systems from outputs to public value

A comprehensive measurement framework should be established across five categories: (1) substantive public outcomes in relation to public problems; (2) equity and inclusion; (3) user experience, processing time, and compliance costs for citizens and enterprises; (4) legitimacy, transparency, trust, and accountability; and (5) sustainability, resilience, and long-term impact. Data should be disaggregated by locality, gender, age, income level, disability status, and relevant groups so average scores do not obscure inequalities.

Not all dimensions should be compressed into a single composite index. The public value performance dashboard should reflect results, costs, distribution, and warning signals. The PAR Index, SIPAS, and National Public Service Portal data should be linked to -journey surveys, field reflections, and independent evaluations. For programs such as eradicating temporary or dilapidated housing or building schools in border areas, post-investment evaluations should continue to monitor livelihoods, learning quality, accessibility, and value retention.

4.3. Organizing implementation around missions and cross-sectoral outcomes

For complex issues, a mission-oriented coordination mechanism is needed, with individuals accountable for final results, shared goals, shared data, and the authority to address bottlenecks. Budgets, plans, and evaluations should incentivize cross-sectoral outcomes rather than optimizing individual "segments" of work. Commune-level authorities should be provided with appropriate authority, human resources, infrastructure, and implementation guidance commensurate with their role as the level of government closest to the people; and there should be a mechanism for rapid professional support from the provincial level.

Every essential public service should be designed with the user's full experience and journey. The responsibility of public authorities should not end when files are submitted or results are issued, but when the citizen’s legitimate and lawful issues are resolved in a verifiable manner.. Recurring bottlenecks should become inputs  for process and regulation revisions and resource reallocation.

4.4. Developing a competency framework for public value creation for officials and civil servants.

The six capacities mentioned above  should  be specified for different job positions. Leaders and managers need the capacity to identify priority values, handle trade-offs, coordinate networks, and take responsibility for results. Advisory civil servants need competencies to analyze data, assess impacts, design policies, and forecast risks. Frontline civil servants need the capacity to understand the user journey, communicate across channels, support vulnerable groups, and translate feedback into service improvements.

Training and professional development should shift strongly towards learning through cases s, projects, and practical problems. Learning outcomes should be demonstrated through an improved process, a reduced cost, the access of a previously overlooked group, or the control of a risk. The evaluation of officials and civil servants should incorporate compliance, performance, social feedback, collaboration capabilities, and innovation initiatives; single satisfaction ratings should not be used as the sole measure for positions requiring difficult but legally sound decisions in order to protect long-term interests.

4.5. Making co-creation a regular feature of development governance

The participation of citizens, businesses, experts, and social organizations should be institutionalized at three key stages: jointly identifying s; jointly testing and refining solutions; and jointly monitoring and evaluating the outcomes. The lead agency should publicly respond to consultations, especially explaining the reasons for not choosing a particular option. For policies that significantly impact vulnerable groups, it is necessary for public authorities to proactively reach out to those least likely to participate, rather than waiting for them to voice their opinions.

Platforms such as Hue-S show that a citizen report only creates value when it is linked to a deadline, a responsible unit, a processing status, evidence of completion, and a mechanism for re-evaluation. This model can evolve from case-by-case handling toward identifying recurring patterns of problems, forecasting hotspots, and co-designing preventive solutions. Data generated by the people must be governed transparently, personal information must be protected,and mechanisms must be in place to prevent misuse of the platform for violations or harmful purposes 4.6. Ensuring digital inclusion and responsible data governance

The principle of "digital first" must not be transformed into "digital only." Public services should remain available through multiple channels and provide on-site digital assistance, support via postal services, community digital technology groups, or mobile service points to ensure the principle of "wherever people are, public services reach them," not " public services are provided only where government offices are located." Service design should meet the legitimate needs of people with disabilities, the elderly, ethnic minorities, and those with low-configuration electronic devices... The important indicator is not how many people submit applications online, but how many people complete the service smoothly, experiencing a safe, user-friendly, convenient, and easy-to-use experience without having to resubmit data that the State already has.

For data and AI in the public sector, it is necessary to clearly define the intended use, data quality, access rights, accountability for errors, explainability, and complaint mechanisms. Systems impacting essential rights and entitlements should be subject to algorithmic risk assessments, human oversight, and periodic audits. Digital trust is both a public value in itself and a prerequisite for creating other values.

4.7. Building an environment for controlled innovation and end-to-end accountable.

Public value creation requires innovation, but public initiative must be within the framework of law, ethics, and accountability. A sand-box mechanism should be specified in terms of scope, duration, target groups, stopping criteria, and safeguards for those affected,. Officials who dare to act for the public good, are motivated by integrity, adhering to experimental procedures and transparently assessing risks, should be protected; conversely, the slogan of innovation should not be used to legitimize arbitrary actions or vested interests.

Agency leaders should be accountable for establishing, building, and developing a public service culture that encourages innovation, creativity, respect, and recognition of initiatives so that staff can identify problems, propose improvements, share mistakes, and learn from them. Rewards should be based on verifiable impact and scalability, not primarily on the number of registered initiatives. In this way, public value creation capacity can become an organizational attribute rather than depending on isolated individual efforts.

Conclusion

Public value is not a new label for all positive outcomes produced by the State. Rather, it is a normative standard that requires public administration to simultaneously demonstrate its substantive value, legitimacy, equity in distribution, effective implementation capacity, and the ability to maintain shared outcomes, norms and values. In the Vietnamese context, public value creation is linked to the leadership role of the Party, the State’s responsibilities for management, governance, and public service, the people's right to mastery, and the capacity to mobilize the strength of the entire society.

The experience of the 2020-2026 period shows that Viet Nam has strong mobilization capacity, many humane policies, and digital models capable of expanding participation. The gap lies in translating these priorities into a consistent and regular governance system: designing policies based on the needs and rights of the people; organizing cross-sectoral implementation; measuring public values and core outcomes; ensuring that vulnerable groups are not left behind; and learning from data and feedback. When public values become an integral part of strategy, policy, budgeting, evaluation, and accountability, the public service will steadily shift from fulfilling tasks to solving practical problems, and from providing services to creating and improving living conditions and development for the people.

------------------------------------------

References:

1. Alford, J., & O'Flynn, J. (2009). Making sense of public value: Concepts, critiques and emergent meanings. International Journal of Public Administration, 32 (3–4), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732731

2. Benington, J., & Moore, M.H. (Eds.). (2011). Public value: Theory and practice . Palgrave Macmillan.

3. Politburo. (2024). Resolution No. 57-NQ/TW dated December 22, 2024 on breakthroughs in the development of science, technology, innovation and national digital transformation .

4. Politburo. (2025). Resolution No. 72-NQ/TW dated September 9, 2025 on some breakthrough solutions to strengthen the protection, care and improvement of people's health .

5. Ministry of Interior. (2026). Hai Phong continues to lead the rankings for PAR Index and SIPAS in 2025. https://moha.gov.vn/tin-tuc/hai-phong-tiep-tuc-dung-dau-bang-xep-hang-ve-par-index-va-sipas-nam-2025---id19462

6. Bozeman, B. (2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review, 62 (2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00165

7. Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C., & Bloomberg, L.L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review, 74 (4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238

8. Government. (2025). Decree No. 238/2025/ND-CP dated September 3, 2025, stipulating policies on tuition fees, exemption, reduction, tuition fee support, support for learning costs and service prices in the field of education and training .

9. Government Electronic Information Portal. (2025). Conference reviewing the program and emulation movement to eliminate temporary and dilapidated houses . https://baochinhphu.vn/truc-iep-hoi-nghi-tong-ket-chuong-trinh-va-phong-trao-thi-dua-xoa-nha-tam-nha-dot-nat-102250826083117352.htm

10. Government Electronic Information Portal. (2026). Building schools for border communes: Ensuring progress and quality; absolutely no loss or waste . https://baochinhphu.vn/xay-truong-hoc-cho-cac-xa-bien-gioi-bao-dam-tien-do-chat-luong-tuyet-doi-khong-de-that-thoat-lang-phi-102260619123037373.htm

11. Communist Party of Viet Nam. (2026). Documents of the 14th National Party Congress (Volume I). National Political Publishing House.

12. Meynhardt, T. (2009). Public value inside: What is public value creation? International Journal of Public Administration, 32 (3–4), 192–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732632

13. Moore, M.H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government . Harvard University Press.

14. OECD. (2019). Public value in public service transformation: Working with change . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/47c17892-en

15. Osborne, SP (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20 (2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461

16. Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24 (6), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X

17. National Assembly. (2025). Resolution No. 217/2025/QH15 dated June 26, 2025 on exemption and support of tuition fees for preschool children, primary and secondary school students, and learners of general education programs in educational institutions belonging to the national education system .

18. National Assembly. (2025). Law on Organization of Local Government No. 72/2025/QH15 dated June 16, 2025 .

19. Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance? The American Review of Public Administration, 36 (1), 41–57.

20. Hue City People's Committee. (2026). Developing a smart city in Hue City: From a connected city to data-driven governance . https://hue.gov.vn/Chuyen-trang/Chuyen-trang-cai-cach-hanh-chinh/Chi-tiet/tb/Phat-trien-do-thi-thong-minh-tai-thanh-pho-Hue-Tu-thanh-pho-ket-noi-den-dieu-hanh-bang-du-lieu-so-356893

21. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2024). United Nations e-government survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development. United Nations. https://desapublications.un.org/publications/un-e-government-survey-2024

22. World Health Organization. (2020, July 30). Viet Nam COVID-19 situation report #2. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/wpro---documents/countries/viet-nam/covid-19/vnm-moh-who-covid-19-sitrep2.pdf?sfvrsn=c0b0be99_2

23. World Health Organization. (2022a, November 21). It's not over yet: COVID-19 vaccines, boosters and children. https://www.who.int/Viet Nam/news/detail/21-11-2022-it-s-not-over-yet---covid-19-vaccines--boosters-and-children

24. World Health Organization. (2022b, June 28). Reaching the unreached with COVID-19 vaccination across the Western Pacific Region . https://www.who.int/westernpacific/newsroom/feature-stories/item/reaching-the-unreached-with-covid-19-vaccination-across-the-western-pacific-region

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Ba Chien - President of the Academy of Public Administration and Governance, Member of the Central Theoretical Council