Once again, land governance under the current legal framework has emerged as a bottleneck for development. Barely a year after the 2024 Land Law took effect, shortcomings have already surfaced, requiring amendments.
At a recent roundtable bringing together the media, policymakers, businesses, and experts, a common concern was raised: without breakthrough thinking and a fresh approach to land governance, can anyone be certain that the next amendment—or the ones after—will finally deliver a legal framework that enables, rather than obstructs, Vietnam’s growth aspirations?
After reviewing the draft amendment now open for public comment, I was encouraged to see regulators responding swiftly to emerging issues. Yet I remain uneasy about the “patchwork” mindset—treating symptoms rather than causes. If the law keeps changing too fast and too often, what will the consequences be? As both legal scholars and ordinary citizens know, what matters most is not what is written on paper, but whether it becomes part of everyday practice and, above all, whether it fosters trust in the stability and predictability of the legal system.
One idea I raised during the drafting of the 2024 Land Law remains relevant today: given that the State is both the sole representative of land ownership and the exclusive land manager in Vietnam, why not apply the well-established model of public–private partnerships (PPP) to manage land more effectively—especially in large-scale land projects or residential real estate developments?
Why Public–Private Partnerships?
Two main reasons stand out.
First, what role should the State play in land governance? In practice, it plays three at once: landowner, macro-level regulator, and market participant. These overlapping roles inevitably lead to asymmetries and conflicts of interest, which, if not managed properly, undermine fairness and economic growth. For example, recent adjustments to local land price tables—bringing them closer to market levels—boosted state revenues, celebrated as fiscal achievements. Yet businesses and land users protested, as inflated input costs made viable business models impossible. The economic result: soaring land prices that tether national growth to real estate.
Second, from the perspective of real estate developers, simply securing cheap land from local authorities can generate extraordinary profits. While private developers bring genuine business acumen and management expertise, much of their windfall comes from land rent differentials—value created by state planning and borne by society. To address this imbalance, Party resolutions and the 2024 Land Law required market-based land valuation. But when land prices rise across the board, new problems arise, as public debate has highlighted.
How would PPP work in land use?
A PPP model could serve as an experimental yet innovative solution, particularly for large-scale private investment projects involving urban development and housing.
Theoretically and practically, such projects have two co-owners: the State, contributing land use rights, and private investors, contributing capital. While developers are profit-driven, these projects also serve social and community interests, which the State must safeguard.
The legal foundation for this partnership is a PPP contract, which sets out binding commitments on all issues of concern under the principle of “shared benefits, shared risks.” Internationally, modern PPP models even involve a third partner: the local community, which stands to benefit—or suffer—from the project.
Because PPPs are contractual, they allow flexible, context-specific arrangements at the provincial level. For private investors, their interests would be openly negotiated, fairly guaranteed, and transparently managed.
What are the benefits?
At a minimum, PPP could help resolve current tensions in large housing projects. Local governments want projects completed quickly to expand housing supply but also seek to maximize land-use fees for budget revenues. Developers, meanwhile, want to minimize or defer these costs to maintain commercial viability. A PPP framework offers a way to reconcile these goals. If communities are included, the model could also ensure fairer distribution of benefits and smoother land clearance.
Of course, several conditions must be met.
Firstly, local governments must adopt long-term development visions focused on urbanization, housing access, and quality of life, rather than short-term fiscal gains.
Secondly, private developers must temper profit-seeking behavior and refrain from exploiting personal ties with officials. In return, they would enjoy reasonable, contractually agreed profits and streamlined procedures.
Thirdly, central government, for its part, must empower local authorities with both rights and responsibilities, backed by professional oversight and enforcement mechanisms within the rule-of-law framework.
If these conditions align, PPP could become a pragmatic tool for harmonizing state, business, and community interests in Vietnam’s land governance.
By Mr. Nguyen Tien Lap, Senior Executive Partner, published on Saigon Times, August 22, 2025