A theoretical framework to Vietnam's paradiplomacy making and implementation

1. Conceptualization of paradiplomacy and Vietnam’s paradiplomacy

Paradiplomacy refers to the international activities conducted by subnational governments such as provinces, regions, or cities, aimed at promoting economic, cultural, and political interests beyond national borders ^{(1), (2)}. It has emerged as a significant domain of global governance, reshaping traditional notions of diplomacy that were once confined to national governments. The regional governments perform actively in international affairs in different ways: they open trade and cultural missions abroad, sign treaties and agreements with foreign state and non-state actors, they participate in international networks of regional cooperation and they sometimes even challenge the official foreign policy of their central governments through their statements or actions. While originally seen as a phenomenon associated with federal systems, paradiplomacy is increasingly recognized in unitary states where decentralization and globalization have expanded the role of local authorities in international affairs.

Vietnam represents a particularly interesting case. Over the past decades, Vietnam has pursued a comprehensive foreign policy aimed at ensuring peace, promoting development, and enhancing international reputation. Within this framework, local governments have become active agents in external cooperation, particularly after the 1986 Đoi Moi reforms that encouraged economic openness and administrative decentralization. However, Vietnam’s paradiplomacy does not operate in a vacuum. It is embedded in a political system characterized by the central role of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) and the unity of state management. This creates a unique institutional arrangement where subnational governments are empowered to act internationally, but within limits defined by national priorities and foreign policy doctrines. Understanding how paradiplomacy is made and implemented in such a context requires a theoretical model that captures both the hierarchical and interactive dimensions of Vietnam’s policy process.

In Vietnam, paradiplomacy constitutes an integral component of the national foreign policy apparatus. It is not an autonomous sphere but a politically mandated task shared by the entire local political system, reflecting the unity between domestic governance and external relations. Subnational governments act as operational arms of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and central agencies, implementing key dimensions of political, economic, and cultural diplomacy, while contributing to the national objectives of security, development, and status. This structure represents a centrally guided form of paradiplomacy characteristic of Vietnam’s socialist, unitary governance model. Paradiplomacy thus reflects the multi-level governance approach, where central, regional, and local authorities jointly contribute to the formulation and implementation of foreign policy.

The conceptualization of Vietnam’s paradiplomacy implies three essential characteristics. First, paradiplomacy is state- and party-led, ensuring the unified direction of the Central Party leadership. The Communist Party of Vietnam determines strategic direction, while state institutions translate Party guidelines into operative regulations and programs. Second, it serves as an operational instrument of national foreign policy at the implementation level, linking local development interests with the broader national strategy. Subnational activities are designed to complement and implement the national foreign policy line, aligning local development interests with national objectives. Third, it represents a “centrally guided paradiplomacy”, where local governments are encouraged to be proactive internationally but within a well-defined legal and policy framework. This conceptualization positions Vietnam’s paradiplomacy within the broader discourse on guided or institutionalized paradiplomacy, emphasizing coordination over contestation and adaptation over autonomy.

2. Paradiplomacy making and implementation framework

Existing literature on paradiplomacy identifies two main perspectives. The autonomy perspective ^(3),(4) emphasizes the growing independence of subnational entities in conducting external relations. From this view, paradiplomacy reflects globalization’s pressure on national borders and the rise of cities as international actors. Conversely, the coordination perspective ^{(5), (6)} argues that paradiplomacy functions within an intergovernmental system where local activities complement, rather than compete with, national diplomacy.

In the Vietnamese case, neither extremefully applies. Local governments are not sovereign entities but operate under national directives. Yet, they have developed substantial agency in shaping the local implementation of foreign policy, especially in economic and cultural domains. Theoretically, this duality aligns with the concept of multi-level governance ⁽⁷⁾ and bureaucratic coordination models ⁽⁸⁾, in which multiple actors participate in foreign policy under a unified strategic vision.

To analyze this complexity, this paper adopts a modified version of the “ends–means–ways” policy framework ⁽⁹⁾. This framework, commonly used in strategic studies, defines policy as the combination of ends (objectives), means (resources), and ways (methods). When applied to paradiplomacy, it enables a systematic analysis of how local governments interpret national goals, mobilize resources, and translate them into external action. In Vietnam’s paradiplomacy, the “ends” are national and local development goals; the “means” include institutional authority, financial resources, and human capital; and the “ways” are the policy instruments, such as cooperation agreements, trade missions, or cultural exchanges.

In theory, policy-making process in foreign affairs, whether at the national or subnational level, involves a coherent combination of ends (objectives), means (resources), and ways (strategies) ⁽¹⁰⁾. Vietnam’s foreign policy shaping process can be represented through a linear model consisting of five sequential and interrelated stages. The first one is contextual assessment – analyzing domestic and international assumptions. The second one is interest and threat definition – identifying key national and local concerns. The third one is goal formulation – setting strategic and operational objectives. The fourth one is resource allocation and planning – linking available means to goals. And the last one is implementation and feedback – executing and adjusting policies. Although sequential, these stages are mutually interactive and recursive, reflecting the feedback loops inherent in policy making practice.

At the core of Vietnam’s foreign policy formulation and implementation—both at the national and subnational levels—lies a distinctive institutional mechanism defined by the principle: “the Party leads, the State manages, and the people are the masters.” This principle is not only a political doctrine but also a functional framework that structures the process of decision-making, policy implementation, and benefit distribution across all dimensions of governance, including foreign affairs.

The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) provides strategic direction by determining the overall line, guidelines, and priorities of foreign policy. Party leadership is exercised through several channels: (i) setting strategic orientations in Party Congress resolutions, (ii) ideological communication and mobilization through the mass organizations, (iii) personnel management and cadre planning for the diplomatic system, and (iv) supervision and inspection to ensure political coherence.

The State, represented by the Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), plays the management role by institutionalizing the Party’s orientations into laws, regulations, and concrete programs. This includes drafting international treaties, approving provincial-level cooperation agreements, and coordinating inter-ministerial implementation. Meanwhile, the people, through elected People’s Councils and representative organizations, exercise ownership—both as beneficiaries of external relations and as active participants in people-to-people diplomacy.

Simplistically, the Party line at the national-level forms the top layer of strategic intent; the State translates it into operative policies; and local authorities, enterprises, and citizens implement and benefit from them. This configuration ensures that Vietnam’s paradiplomacy operates within a unified political hierarchy yet retains space for localized adaptation and initiative.

Subnational diplomacy follows this model but with distinct local-level adjustments. It follows a linear yet interactive sequence of five stages:

(i) Contextual assessment: Local authorities analyze domestic and international conditions—economic trends, regional risks, and central policy priorities.

(ii) Interest and threat definition: Local leaders identify specific needs (e.g., market access, technology cooperation) and challenges (e.g., trade barriers, environmental issues).

(iii) Goal formulation: Strategic objectives are defined and aligned with national policy frameworks, particularly the Five-Year Socio-Economic Development Plan.

(iv) Resource allocation and planning: Administrative and financial resources are allocated to ensure feasibility and accountability.

(v) Implementation and feedback: Agreements are executed, monitored, and reported to both provincial People’s Committees and the MOFA for review and adjustment.

Although structured linearly, this model operates in a recursive feedback loop. Lessons from implementation inform future planning, while central agencies continuously update guidelines based on local performance. This dynamic ensures consistency between national strategies and local experimentation.

It is clear that compared to the state foreign policy process, Vietnam’s paradiplomacy requires several add-ins to adapt the general policy model to the subnational context. First, it is contextual adjustment that local planning must translate macro-level strategies into region-specific agendas. For instance, border provinces focus on cross-border trade and security cooperation, while coastal regions prioritize marine economy and environmental protection. Second, it is multi-level policy actors that paradiplomacy involves both national and local actors. The MOFA and central agencies play guiding and supervisory roles, whereas local governments initiate and implement projects. This interaction embodies a top-down and bottom-up dual mechanism that balances control with flexibility. Third, it is vertical implementation mechanism. The policy operates through a hierarchical chain of responsibility. The central government formulates overarching frameworks, which are then localized through provincial plans. Each level maintains accountability and functional clarity, ensuring unified yet diversified implementation.

3. The novelty of Vietnam’s paradiplomacy framework

Vietnam’s paradiplomacy can be conceptualized as a multi-level policy mechanism combining vertical command with horizontal coordination.

Firstly, it is the top-down mechanism. At the apex, MOFA acts as the central coordinator or “policy conductor.” It provides legal guidance, approves local external programs, and monitors compliance with national interests and international obligations. Central ministries also supply technical expertise and capacity-building programs for local diplomatic officials. This ensures professionalization while maintaining ideological and procedural discipline.

Secondly, it is also the bottom-up mechanism. Conversely, local governments contribute to the bottom-up dimension by generating feedback and innovation. Being closest to economic actors and communities, provinces detect emerging international opportunities earlier than central institutions. Through reports and proposals, they feed local insights into the national policy cycle. Provinces such as Ho Chi Minh City, Da Nang City, Binh Duong (old) province have pioneered investment promotion, smart-city cooperation, and green-growth initiatives that were later scaled up nationwide—demonstrating how local experimentation enriches national diplomacy.

Thirdly, it is the recursive feedback and learning. Although the policy process follows a linear design—from assessment to implementation—it functions recursively. Experiences from implementation inform central revisions of guidelines, while national priorities shape future local plans. This interaction produces a dynamic equilibrium between unity and diversity—one of the defining features of Vietnam’s paradiplomacy.

Finally, it is the controlled autonomy and adaptive governance. The Vietnamese model can thus be described as controlled autonomy: local governments enjoy operational flexibility within clearly demarcated legal boundaries. This balance reflects an adaptive governance approach typical of socialist-oriented market economies—emphasizing learning, adjustment, and gradual institutional evolution rather than rigid decentralization.

The theoretical framework developed in this paper contributes to both the study of paradiplomacy and the understanding of governance in socialist-oriented unitary states. Unlike the Western-centric literature, which often assumes the existence of autonomous subnational actors, the Vietnamese case demonstrates that paradiplomacy can flourish within a centralized political order as long as it is embedded in a coherent system of hierarchical coordination and adaptive governance.

From a theoretical perspective, the framework integrates multi-level governance, policy cycle theory, and bureaucratic coordination models into a hybrid analytical tool that explains how paradiplomacy can be simultaneously top-down and bottom-up. The ends–means–ways model provides a structured lens for assessing how strategic objectives (ends) are translated into actionable plans (ways) and supported by institutional and resource mechanisms (means). This approach is particularly suitable for Vietnam, where the Party–State nexus constitutes both the source of authority and the mechanism for coordination.

The model also contributes to the emerging literature on “guided paradiplomacy”, a form of subnational diplomacy in which the central government delegates partial authority to local entities under clearly defined ideological and legal constraints. This concept refines the traditional dichotomy between autonomy and control by emphasizing functional interdependence rather than political competition. Vietnam’s experience shows that even within a unitary and centralized framework, paradiplomacy can serve as a laboratory of innovation and a mechanism for localizing global engagement.

From a practical perspective, the framework offers a diagnostic and planning tool for policymakers. By identifying the five sequential stages—contextual assessment, interest and threat definition, goal formulation, resource allocation, and implementation-feedback—the model enables both central and provincial authorities to evaluate policy coherence and performance. It highlights the importance of feedback loops and continuous learning, which are essential in a rapidly changing global environment. Moreover, the notion of “controlled autonomy” underscores the need for balancing flexibility with accountability, ensuring that local initiatives remain aligned with national interests while maintaining room for creative adaptation.

At a deeper level, the Vietnamese case reflects a broader transformation in global diplomatic governance. The proliferation of city and provincial diplomacy is not only a response to globalization but also an outcome of domestic institutional evolution. In Vietnam, decentralization reforms, economic modernization, and international integration have expanded the space for local governments to interact with external partners. However, this expansion is not anarchic; it is guided by Party resolutions, government decrees, and supervision mechanisms that ensure coherence with national strategy. Thus, paradiplomacy in Vietnam represents an institutionalized decentralization, not a political devolution.

Conclusion

Vietnam’s paradiplomacy exemplifies a distinctive model of subnational foreign engagement that reconciles centralized leadership with decentralized execution. It demonstrates how a one-party socialist system can incorporate multi-level governance principles without undermining political unity or policy coherence. The theoretical framework developed here—rooted in the “ends–means–ways” model and adapted to the Vietnamese political-administrative context—captures the essential dynamics of how paradiplomacy is both made and implemented in practice.

Three major conclusions emerge:

First, paradiplomacy in Vietnam is an extension of national diplomacy, not its rival. It operates under the unified leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam, ensuring that all external actions of subnational actors serve the overarching goals of national security, development, and prestige.

Second, Vietnam’s paradiplomacy embodies a learning-oriented governance model, where feedback from local experiences continuously shapes central policymaking. This iterative process strengthens policy adaptability and responsiveness to global changes.

Third, the success of Vietnam’s paradiplomacy depends on maintaining institutional synergy—effective communication channels between central ministries, provincial governments, and non-state actors such as enterprises, universities, and civic organizations.

The Vietnamese model suggests that paradiplomacy does not necessarily require constitutional federalism or political pluralism to function effectively. Instead, what matters is the institutionalized interaction between levels of governance, guided by shared objectives and disciplined coordination. As Vietnam continues to deepen its global integration and pursue new-generation free trade and strategic partnerships, paradiplomacy will increasingly serve as a strategic instrument to localize international cooperation and translate global opportunities into domestic development outcomes.

In this sense, Vietnam’s paradiplomacy can be viewed not merely as a supplementary foreign policy activity but as a strategic governance innovation—a mechanism that connects global engagement with local development through structured political guidance, bureaucratic discipline, and participatory implementation. The theoretical framework proposed in this paper therefore provides a foundation for further empirical research and policy design aimed at enhancing the efficiency, flexibility, and sustainability of Vietnam’s international cooperation at the subnational level./.

(1) Noe Cornago (2010) “On the Normalization of Sub-State Diplomacy”, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 5 (1-2) p. 11-36, 2010, DOI: 10.1163/1871191x-05010102.

(2) Alexander Kuznetsov (2014) Theory and Practice of Paradiplomacy: Subnational Governments in International Affairs, Routledge, London.

(3) Hans J. Michelmann và Panayotis Soldatos (1990) Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

 (4) André Lecours (2008) Political Issues of Paradiplomacy: Lessons from the Developed World, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, Wassenaar.

(5) Brian Hocking (1993) Localizing Foreign Policy: Non-Central Governments and Multilayered Diplomacy, St. Martin's, New York.

(6) David Criekemans (2010) Regional Sub-State Diplomacy Today, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden-Boston.

(7) Gary Marks    (1996) “An actor-centred        approach    to multi-level          governance”,        Regional     and    Federal Studies 6: 20-40.

(8) Graham T. Allison (1971) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Little, Brown, Michigan.

(9), (10) Arthur F Lykke (1989) “Defining Military Strategy = E+W+M.”,  Military Review, Vol. LXIX, No. 5 (May, 1989), p. 1-8.