RESEARCH ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIAL URBAN ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT

General Secretary and State President To Lam has instructed relevant authorities to study the possibility of establishing special urban administrative units that would serve as core centers for regional development coordination, infrastructure connectivity, and the promotion of key economic zones.

According to the conclusion notice issued by the Party Central Office on June 19 following a review meeting on the first year of operating the overall organizational model of the political system and the three-tier local government structure, the General Secretary and State President acknowledged that the initial implementation had achieved positive results. However, many issues still require further review and refinement to meet the demands of the country's next stage of development.

Although the number of organizational units has been streamlined, the quality of operations across localities remains uneven. Governance effectiveness has yet to meet expectations, while decentralization and delegation of authority in some areas continue to face challenges due to limited resources, implementation capacity, and appropriate management tools.

The country's top leader directed relevant agencies to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the consistency, transparency, and coherence of the current legal framework, particularly in areas such as science and technology, innovation, digital transformation, land management, natural resources, minerals, public finance, budgeting, and the decentralization mechanism between central and local governments.

At the same time, local authorities are required to review the implementation capacity of commune-level governments relative to the responsibilities assigned to them, especially in the fields of land administration, construction, finance, justice, industry and trade, agriculture, environmental management, and socio-cultural affairs. Such evaluations must be aligned with staffing structures, the quality of professional personnel, and the practical needs of each locality.

The General Secretary and State President also emphasized the need to identify shortcomings arising from the application of a uniform governance model to localities with varying development conditions. Differences in socio-economic development levels, workforce quality, geographical conditions, transportation infrastructure, and information technology systems require more flexible governance mechanisms tailored to different groups of localities, particularly between major urban centers and rural or mountainous areas.

The effectiveness of the judicial system following the dissolution of the High People's Courts, High People's Procuracies, and district-level court and procuracy systems also requires careful assessment. In addition, the status of digital infrastructure, telecommunications networks, data systems, and technology platforms supporting grassroots governance must be comprehensively reviewed to ensure they meet the requirements of modern public administration.

Notably, the General Secretary and State President proposed further studies on adjusting and merging certain communes and wards based on criteria such as area, population, infrastructure conditions, and administrative capacity. The objective is to improve governance efficiency through economies of scale while accelerating digital transformation and the application of information technology in government operations.

In particular, functional agencies have been tasked with studying the addition of a special urban administrative unit model. These entities would act as core development centers responsible for coordinating regional growth, connecting technical infrastructure and public services, and supporting major economic growth poles.

Alongside the opportunities presented by administrative reform, the General Secretary and State President also warned of several potential risks that should be identified early. These include the possibility that administrative streamlining may focus solely on reducing organizational structures without significantly improving public services; disparities in public service quality across regions; and increasing workloads for grassroots officials, which may lead to risk aversion and reluctance to take responsibility.

Furthermore, any adjustment of administrative boundaries must be considered in relation to economic zones, urban areas, industrial parks, tourism regions, and development corridors. If not organized appropriately, residents could face longer travel distances, increased time commitments, and higher costs when accessing public services.

Under the administrative reform roadmap implemented from July 2025, Vietnam reduced the number of provinces and centrally governed cities from 63 to 34. At the same time, the district level of government was abolished, resulting in the discontinuation of province-level cities, cities under centrally governed municipalities, towns, urban districts, rural districts, and township administrative units.

As a result, all 84 provincial cities, 53 towns, and the two cities directly under centrally governed municipalities—Thu Duc and Thuy Nguyen—are no longer classified as district-level administrative units.

Vietnam currently has seven centrally governed cities: Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Hai Phong, Hue, Da Nang, Can Tho, and Dong Nai.