An Interesting Case Study from Vietnam

Introduction:

Stephen B. Young, Global Executive Director, the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism

The following commentary presents a case study of the tension between a Moral Capitalism and a Crony Capitalism in a developing country, Vietnam.  The defining characteristic of Crony Capitalism in the insertion of political power as a kind of “grey” property into business decision-making.  The asset purchased by a business from the “Crony” is not land, labor, capital, or raw materials. It is permission to operate. Sometimes the permission is formal license from a public authority which is paid for, either legally, or corruptly.  But sometimes the permission is private, unseen by the public or the market, a personal commitment either to manipulate political authority to favor the business or to prevent political authority from interfering in the business.

Economists refer to the mechanism of Crony Capitalism as “rent-extraction”. Those who use power on one kind or another, legally or illegally, to make money though rent-extraction are called rent-seekers.

Rent-seekers and rent-extraction violate the rules and practices of Moral Capitalism and Moral Government where public office is held as a trust to enhance the common good of the community.

The commentary argues that in Vietnam today what is produced in Vietnam – “Made in Vietnam” – should not finance rent-seeking by anyone. Chinese entrepreneurs should not be able to buy permission to make Chinese goods in Vietnam and pass them off as Vietnamese goods reflecting the skills and efforts of Vietnamese.

The Commentary asks Why are powerful people pushing sales of certain products and not others? Who will compensate them for this effort? If their favored companies gain a monopoly or a disproportionate share of the market, such companies can force the Vietnamese people to pay monopoly prices – to pay “rents” to those who  hold power.

The Commentary is available at: https://chantroimoimedia.com/2025/08/05/hang-viet-xe-viet-va-cau-chuyen-ep-dan-yeu-vuong-vin/amp/

VIETNAMESE PRODUCTS, VIETNAMESE EVs, AND THE FORCED “LOVE” FOR VINFAST

Loving your country doesn’t mean loving a product made with 70% Chinese parts!

Author: Trần Trung Thực

What does “Made in Vietnam” truly mean? Ideally, it should refer to products created by Vietnamese people, infused with Vietnamese intellect and labor, serving the Vietnamese community, and contributing to the nation’s goal of sustainable, self-reliant development.

Unfortunately, today, the concept of “Vietnamese goods” is being narrowed, even distorted. Instead of supporting locally made, accessible products, all attention and resources—from media to policies and even subtle forms of coercion—are being funneled into promoting a single model: the Vietnamese electric vehicle.

The pressing question is: Why, at this point in time, has the conversation shifted from broadly supporting “Vietnamese products” to solely pushing for one very specific, very expensive item that’s out of reach for most working-class citizens: VinGroup’s electric scooters?

From the 3-million-dong bike to the 40-million-dong e-scooter – blatant imposition

Let’s face reality: Most workers, students, laborers, and street vendors in Vietnam still rely on traditional motorbikes—used ones can cost as little as 3–5 million VND. They’re easy to fix, simple to use, and well-suited to both the terrain and the modest income of the average Vietnamese.

Yet in recent years, a massive media campaign has been in full swing to glorify “Vietnamese” electric vehicles—sleek, clean, high-tech machines, priced at 30–40 million VND apiece, not including battery replacements, charging, and maintenance.

Alongside this PR push are policy proposals to ban gasoline vehicles, recall older models, raise environmental taxes, and most recently, Resolution 68. Yes, promoting green transport and reducing pollution is a worthy goal. But why is only one type of vehicle—produced by one major corporation—being touted as the national symbol, the “Vietnamese dream,” and the only acceptable path forward?

Policy lobbying—or aggressive market interference?

This is no longer a matter of free market dynamics. When policies are tailored to pave the way for one specific product, we must speak up. Lobbying is not new—but when it escalates into indirect coercion of consumers, via policy pressure, inflated propaganda, and limited alternatives, then we’re no longer talking about fair competition but engineered monopoly.

Who’s behind voices like Trần Đình Thiên?

Recently, Trần Đình Thiên—a figure once sarcastically nicknamed “Trần Huyên Thuyên” (Trần the Rambler) for his often lofty, ungrounded public statements—has again stirred controversy. He openly and enthusiastically advocates for Vietnamese EVs, declaring them the inevitable future.

But it’s his most recent comment that truly raises eyebrows:

> “Joining hands to support Vietnamese EVs is how each of us can show our patriotism.”

This statement eerily echoes a dangerous old slogan:

> “To love your country is to love socialism.”

History has shown us that when patriotism is hijacked to serve specific political, economic, or ideological agendas, the result is often division, coercion, and public disillusionment. Patriotism should never be reduced to favoring one brand—nor should it ever become a mandatory sentiment.

Let’s define Vietnamese goods—clearly and honestly

It’s important that readers understand what qualifies as a “Vietnamese product.” Yes, it may be labeled “Made in Vietnam,” but more importantly, it must have substantial local value-added content—meaning the parts, labor, intellectual property, and supply chain are predominantly Vietnamese.

Take Trung Nguyên coffee, for instance: grown, processed, and packaged entirely in Vietnam, exported to over 200 countries and territories. Or the Vietnamese catfish industry, which, though using feed from CP (a Thai-owned firm in Vietnam), still produces fundamentally local products.

In contrast, VinFast electric scooters reportedly consist of over 70% imported components. The remaining 30% “Vietnamese” portion includes things like food service, driver wages, utility bills, and land use—not core manufacturing.

Governments should encourage investment in local supply chains and supporting industries—that’s good policy. But once a product hits the market, it is the consumer who decides. No government, ministry, or academic has the right to promote one product while disparaging others. That violates the basic principles of fair competition.

Don’t forget: major brands like Honda, Suzuki, Hyundai, and Kymco all operate manufacturing facilities in Vietnam. Their products also count as Vietnamese-made.

Patriotism is not about endorsing a product made of 70% Chinese parts—especially if it’s inferior in both price and quality compared to its competitors.

—

Final thoughts

Dear Mr. Trần Đình Thiên,

Dear economic advisors,

Dear those holding the reins of media and policy:

Please, let the people choose what fits their lives. If electric vehicles are truly good, the market will choose them. But if they don’t suit the income, infrastructure, or reality of most Vietnamese citizens, then don’t force this love on us.

> “Loving someone, when forced, can hurt them tenfold.”

And that’s exactly what’s happening!