EQUALITY : CONCEPT, DEBATE, AND

DEVELOPMENT
A survey of opinions and debates in Vietnam
-----------------------
by Ngo Huy Duc, HCMNPA

I.INTRODUCTION

This paper review the development of concept

“equality\inequality” in Vietnam over the last 30 years, in
relation to the development of Renovation process, which
essentially abolished the centrally planned economy (CPE) and
open the way for market forces to develop.
The equality concept has a close connection with one of the
two main flaws - the problem “motivation” - under CPE,
therefore, its development reflects the complicated interaction
between “reality” and “perception”, which can be summarised
as follows:
Original concept => Economic management (before 1986)
=> Accumulated evidence of inefficiency/efficiency (mostly in
Agriculture) => New equality concept (developed over 1979-
1986) => Introduction of self accounting (In industrial
production) (1986-93) => Increased efficiency in parralel with
increased inequality (against socialist ideal) => Reconcile
socialism and market: state role in reducing inequality (1993-
now) => Refined inequality concept.
Clearly, the development of “equality/inequality” concept is
a gradual process , influenced by many factors, the most
important of which are : evidence of ineficiency, change in VCP
leadership, succes of Chinese economic reform, collapse of
Soviet Union and socilist system in Eastern Europe.
Taking into account all above considerations, these changes
can be grouped loosely according to three periods : before
1986, 1986-1993, 1993-2005. In each period wthe paper will
try to identify main debates and their outcome, which were
incorporate into the Party and state development programmes
and directions.
Main line of development can be seen as development
through 3 steps:
Equality = Egalitarianism (not desireable but inevitable
under war condition ?)
Equality = Legal equality (de jure; same “legal” treatment,
which does not necessarily mean “same policy”, social status,
longer term commitment )
Equality = equality de-facto, equal access to resources –
information, capital, (even political commitments ?)

II.PERIOD BEFORE 1986

Equality is one of the most important ideals of socialism. In

Vietnamese practice, following the Soviet model, the equality
was seen first of all, in the “equal ownership in productive
means”, of which the most important was land ownership as
Vietnam economy was predominantly argicultural. So in the
earlier period (1955-65), the land reform and the industrial-
trade reform were seen as the most important factors to

2
guarantee this equality as they essentially destroyed private
capitalist ownership. Once, the ownership problem was solved,
the distribution of income should be according to contributed
amount of labour (as opposed to “according to needs”).
During this period, people received their income more or
less arcording to their working hours . However, people could
not work for many hours as they wanted. This was called “the
system of limited working days”, whereby people are alloted an
appropriate number of working-days, according to their
conditions (health, knowledge, etc.) (Trong, 1980, p. 28). This
guaranteed low unemployment while people were motivated to
work hard. Part of national income was reasonably used for the
“social needs” such as public investment, health, education,
defence, etc. Egalitarianism was considered not strong in this
period (1955-65) (Que, 1990). At the end of this period,
egalitarian elements of this system started to reveal many
problems, which led to the Party open campaigns such as
“reform cooperatives’s management”, “3 [things to] build and
3 [things to] against” to overcome low productive motivation.
Due to the escalating of American war, these campaigns were
delayed for more important political tasks (Tung, 1982).
In contrast to the period 1955-65, since 1965, during the
war against the US, economic hardship in combination with
publicly accepted slogan “everythings for the front” provided a
good justification for the new mechanism of income distribution.
Equality in this period can be charaterised by “equality in
income”, or egalitarianism. Resources mobilisation for war

3
efforts was widely accepted as legitimate. “Subsidised
administrative system, egalitarian income distribution were
widened. Many things that serve military operations had to be
done at all costs” (Tung, 1982, p.14).
This egalitarianism was developed gradually during the war
according to a general principle “to guarantee basic needs
combined with distribution according to labour” [to encourage
labour effort and efficiency]. In practice, this mechanism was
realised through a number decisions by Government (Resolution
No.84, Decisions 55-CP, and 75-CP), which stipulated that
income should be distributed in two parts: i) the “basic needs”
part was in kind (rice, and other basic foods: sugar, meats,
vegetables1) and ii) the “labour effort encouraging” part was in
money. Due to many technical problems, especially the
imposibility to measure “quality of work” as well as the price
differences (between official procurement prices and free
market prices), the mechanism actually encouraged laziness
and cheating (Trong, 1980). During the war, this concept of
equality, however, played important role as it encouraged
soldiers since it acted as a guarantee for their families. (Que,
1990)
By 1979, the Party had identified as its urgent task “to
rectify distribution mechanism in agricultural cooperatives,
guarantee the principle of distribution according to labour
contributed” (Resolution of the Sixth Plenum, IV Congress,

1
For rural areas, people would receive rice from cooperatives (“Dieu hoa luong
thuc). For urban areas, people would receive vouchers (“Tem phieu”), which entitle them
to buy foods at very low price, to guarantee basic needs
4
1979). This general guideline did not create new situation as it
did not take into account the above technical difficulties, which
are inherent features of CPE and state ownership. As a result,
de facto egalitarianism was further entrenched with its all
negative effects on economy as well as other social and political
aspects.
To conclude this section, income distribution according to
labour contributed was emphasised by both Lenin and Ho Chi
Minh many times at the early periods of Soviet and Vietnamese
socialist regime. However, in practice under CPE, this evolved
into egalitarianism that reduced working motivation due to
many technical as well as political factors. VCP did recognised
the problems quite early, at least from the late 1970s and
launched (or permitted local governments) experiments with
contracting system (see, e.g. Cuc, 1989) since then, which
played very important role in pushing the Doi moi in 1986.

III.PERIOD FROM 1986-1993

The Sixth Congress of VCP officially marked the beginning

of Doi moi (Renovation) as a new strategy, but as analysed in
the previous section, the institutional experiments underlied
this Doi moi were launched 7 years earlier.
The equality concept was revised vividly under the term
“economic interest”, which had “revolutionary” charater since it
touched a very sensitive question of socialist ideology - the
legitimacy of individual pursuit of wealth under socialism. As a
famous theorist of VCP put it: “We used to view economic
interests as means...but before all, they are the goals. And
5
precisely because they are goals either for individuals,
collectives or the whole society, they can act as means to
motivate people to work” (Sam, 1982, p. 14). To be wealthy is
legitimate and even “progressive” if a “reasonable” income
distribution mechanism is established such that “individual and
collective economic interests are harmonised” to promote
efficiency. This efficiency criterium should be the most
important to judge whether a mechanism is reasonable.
Clearly, egalitarianism could not fit this criterium, so it should
be criticised rigorously. The Party daily newspaper also gave a
green light for the attack in its editorial : “Egalitarianism is a
reactionary theory since it hampers social development,
promotes primitive living conditions” ( Nhan dan “People”, 19
Oct. 1979). So the first and most important stumbling block
was removed with fairly high consensus long before 1986 both
because of succesful experiments as well as rediscovered
theoretical teachings of Marx, Engel, Lenin and Ho Chi Minh (see
Ngoan, 1982; Sam, 1982; Tung, 1982). It should be noted that
it was not totally removed though, as individuals should get
only a “reasonable” part, which, for party members, means “no
exploitation”. This so crucial concept “exploitation” is still not
resolved today. This concept is also important to understand
evolution of the concept “equality” as we will try to analyse
below.
Equality does not mean egalitarinism, but it also does not
mean exploitation (however vague it is !). Since everyone
knows that private (capitalist) ownership will lead to

6
exploitation, so one of the most important component of
equality needed to clarified is the “equality” of different
economic sectors (private, collective, state) and different levels
(individual, collective, society). This was reflected in the
documents of The Party Sixth Congress : we need “to remove
all negative prejudice in evaluating and unequal treatment
towards labourers of different economic sectors. The state has
favourable economic policies for socialist sector (such as
investment, taxation, credits...): but legally, it should implement
the principle of equality.” “Individuals contributed to social
welfare, not violating laws and policies are entitled to received
income according to results of their labour and legal business
activities” (VCP, 1987, p.22-23).
So the essential question is: does [legal] equality still mean
inequality [in laws and policies] ? The hidden mentality is clear:
private (capitalist) sectors tends to exploit so the policies and
laws should restore equality by “favourable economic policies
for socialist sector”. The debate in the Party’s theoretical
journal Communist highlighted this contradictions.
Using two concepts “legal equality” and “economic
equality”, Tung (1988) interpreted “equality” among sectors just
as legal equality, while means laws and policies can remained
unequal to non-socialist sectors. i.e. economic unequality
should be retained, since Vietnam develops towards socialism.
He wrote: we “must economically favour socialist sector, while
guarantee equality in laws and other legitimate interests of all
economic sectors” (Tung, 1988, p. 71).

7
 In contrast to Tung, Son (1988a and b) emphasised the
equality should be in every aspects, both legal and economic by
citing resolutions of the Second (1987) and the Fourth Plenum
of Central Committee (1988), where the Party decided not “to
discriminate against any sector in credit policies, material
supply, etc.”, and “not to discriminate against people and their
children in all economic sectors both politically and socially ”.
He argued that, firstly, non-socialist sectors cannot become “an
independent production mode” (which implied they are under
“control”), and more importantly, the evidence showed that the
child protection argument had failed, socialist sector (SOE and
cooperatives) remained inefficient and we cannot continue
“protection” (or favour) forever. (Son, 1988b, p.72). Therefore,
except some special sector such as arm and explosive
production, all sectors must have the same treatment de jure
and de facto. The inequality in income can be regulate by state
through taxation and redistribution as in any market economy
(ibid, p.72). Moreover, private bussiness does not necessarily
mean exploitation, since it depends on “character and purposes
of employment, and distribution of surplus values” (Trong,
1988).
It should be noted that, in reality, the socialist sector did
have more favourable conditions, but for a limited period due to
many factors of domestic and international developments
during the late 1980 (especially, the collapse of socialist
system). The debate is still continuing up to the present days,
but it have less ideological character, more practical under the

8
pressure of accumulated evidence of hugh debts and
inefficiency of SOEs, as well as under the condition of stable
political environment, efficiency arguments tend to prevail
purely ideological considerations. By 1993, the discrimination
was still widespred, as Son (1993) pointed out: “Private
producers cannot borrow capital. If they can, the conditions are
not favourable, and the interest rates are at the highest level.
They also have to ask too many permission for import and
export activities, which are not required by laws. They also face
price discrimination in telephone, electricity …So the truth is
there is no equality!” (p. 24-25). Moreover, with widespread
corruption, “people surely know that the redistribution [through
the state] will be unequal”, therfore, policies favouring SOEs are
not necessary as they do not promote a “healthy economic
development” (ibid, p.25)
All the above consideration showed that the key concept
underlied equality concept in this period was “self –
accounting”2. One should be responsible for oneself activities:
legally and economically. Based on this self acounting, the
state is supposed to find its own way to orient all sectors
towards socialism (that is, the market with socialist
orientation(MSO) is the “strategy for the whole transitional
period to socialism”. VCP, 1991, 1996, and 2001).
Beside the above heavy ideological line of debate, equality
concept was also considered in many other dimensions:

2
In agriculture, the self-accounting was implemented first by Instruction No.100
CT/TW 13/1/1981, and further by the Polit Bureau Resolution No.10, 5/4/1988. In industry,
it was implemented by Decision No. 217 HDBT, 1997.
9
between ethnic groups (Manh, 1990; Duong, 2000), between
agricultural/rural and industrial/urban labourers (Hung,
N.T.1999; Duong, 2000), male and female (Khac, 1986; Hung,
L.N., 1999), and among different provinces and areas
(Que,1990).
Discusions on thesse issues had agreed on the general
direction that the Party and State should create “equal
opportunities” and “a leveled field for all players” by providing
basic social services, infrastructure, legal frameworks, and so
on. Based on these “equal opportunities” everyone must be
responsible for themselves (“self accounting”, Self reliance”,
“mobilise internal resources” etc. were terms used to express
this idea).
For example, Manh (1990) wrote: “Ethnic minority’s areas
should promote the self-reliance, creative spirit to master their
own natural resources and exploit other comparative
advantages, not to wait for, and rely on state help” (Manh,
1990, p.2). However, the state should have necessary long-
term economic planing and investment in education and
infrastructure (ibid).
The VLSS (Vietnam living standard survey) conducted by
the World Bank and GSO (The General Statisical Office of
Vietnam), and other statistics had showed a worrying trend of
increasing inequality in 3 aspects: i) increasing Gini coefficient,
and income gap between the richest and the poorest groups ii)
increasing the income gaps among rural and urban areas; iii)
high level of poverty (e.g. Tho, 1999). Thus, emerged the

10
question about the state role and functions in a MSO as the
income gap (measured in many dimensions as mentioned
above) was widened steadily over the whole 20 years of Doi
moi.

IV.PERIOD FROM 1993 UP TO NOW

The equality concept was considered by Party leaders in

following main perspectives:
i) Equality and economic growth (Khai, 2002)
ii) Equality among ethnic groups (Hoa, 2003)
iii) Equality between rural and urban areas (Dung, 2002)
iv) Equality and poverty (Hang, 1996).
These are main perspectives since they reflect main
sources of possible social and political instabilities and
contradictions. This period, especially after the Ninth Congress
of VCP, the legal equality continued to be emphasised and
politically committed. As Khai, the Prime Minister, wrote: “Let
me emphasise again, this equality [of different sectors] means
equality before laws, based on laws, which all people, sectors,
and businesses must comply with” (Khai, 2003, p. 11).
Moreover, “it is a very important task to mobilise non-stare
sectors. Past experience showed that these sectors have big
advantages in mobilising vast potential resources of society and
overseas” (ibid, p.12-13). The state sector, while retained
“leading role”, is faced harder constraints. For individuals, he
emphasised “all citizen are free to do any busisness not
forbiden by laws, for their own interests, not violating others

11
interest, contributing to social prosperity and progress ” (ibid,
p.10).
However, it was also recognised that equality in laws is not
enough to guarantee equality because the laws and policies
themselves may not be equal, and people may not have equal
access and opportunity to realise fully their potentials.
Therefore, a rethingking of the state role in a market economy
was needed. The debate surely was influenced by the
experience of egalitarianism in the past, so the focal point of
many debates was on the relation between equality and growth.
Although most of articles argued that growth (at least at the
initial stage) inevitably will create unequality, and it can be
acceptable if it is not too high (Dinh, 2000; Long, 1999; Quang,
2002), some authors asserted this is capitalist propaganda “for
the interests of minority and harmful to majority of people”
(Dong, 2000, p. 29).
Main developments in equality concept can be seen in the
following points:

 Private and state sectors should be treated equally not

only in laws but also in term of credit, subsidy and
investment policies. This means the state should
cease to subsidy loss-making SOEs, to subsidy them
directly or indirectly (through concessional credit and
debt rescheduling etc.). Investment decisions should
base on efficiency criteria not on political
considerations (Long, 1999, p.35-36). In other word,
the state should create an enviroment of “healthy
12
 competitions” for all sectors, against monoply. “To
reduce dratically the state direct administrative
intervention in economic activities” (Khai, 2002). To
remove the inequality and poverty, the state, instead
of direct help, will create opportunities for poor areas
to develop, relying firstly on their own efforts and
resourses. The state will focus on other social and
redistributive activities, poverty reduction and help
vulnerable groups as Dong put “Social equality means
to satisfy basic needs of majority : general education,
basic health care, infrastructure, and basic production”
(Dong, 2000, p. 30). The above view had many ways
of espressions: equality in opportunity and conditions
(Hoan, 2003), equality means humanism (Huyen,
2002) etc.

 The state should carry out “basic’ social policies to

reduce inequality: protection of poor people must be
institutionalised , embodied in laws (Labour Code, Law
of Children protection, care and education, Decree on
the subsidy for people with revolutionary achivements,
Decree on disable people etc. ) In this spirit, the state
also should have targeted programs to reduce poverty
and to help the poorest communes, to encourage
“community spirit”, “social mutual help”. (Hang,
2000). To establish special fund to help vulnerable
groups such as poor, unemployed, disable, invalid
people. Especially, the state has to carry out

13
 universalisation of primary and secondary education,
since this will help the poor and promote equality in
the long-term. (Anh, 2000).
Equality in this period, therfore, had touched the traditional
dillema of a normal market economy. A consensus was
reached in two important points: i) inequality should be
accepted for certain period to promote growth; ii) The state,
however, should keep the gap between the rich and the poors
at a reasonable by income redistribution scheme, infrastructure
development, subsidised training and education, poverty
reduction programme etc.. Due to motivation problem in the
past, a greater emphasis was placed on the capacity building
aspect. i.e. “to help the poor to help themselves” (e.g. Thanh,
2000; Hang, 2000). By that way, the state hope to motivate
people to work while keep inequality at a “safe” level.
Another important development is “equality in political
treatment”. In other words, it essentially means private
businessmen should have the same social respect and
protection. This is a rather vague but important especially from
historical perspective as well as in the conditions of the Vietnam
political system.

V.CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Although heavily influenced by ideological thoughts,

traditional values, the equality concept has changed drastically
during the last 20 years, under pressure of new evidence and
influence by market theories. In reality, due to low governance
capacity and technical difficulties, there was a tendency
14
towards individualism with low social responsibility. This
“natural” tendency was in contradiction with socialist ideals,
created a dynamism of Vietnam development.

15
 VI.REFERENCES

Notes: All articles are in Vietnamese. Original titles can be found in

the appendix under the author names

1. Anh, Nguyen, Quoc, 2000. “Social equality in our country’s

eduction”, Journal Communist, No. 17/2000
2. Chau, Tran Minh, 2000. “Effieciency and equality in a market
economy”, Political Science, No.6/2000.
3. Cuc, Nguyen Sinh, 1989. “30 years of agricultural
collectivisation in our country”, Theoretical Information , No.
11/1989.
4. Dinh, Dinh The, 2000. “ Rich – poor division and the social
equality implementation in rural areas in the North of the
Central Vietnam”, Theoretical Studies, No.6/2000.
5. Dong, Pham Tat, 2000. “Economic growth with social
equality – a substance of market with socialist orientation”,
National Defence, No.7/2000.
6. Dung, Nguyen Tan, 2002. “For a sustainable development of
agriculture and rural areas, and richer peasantry”, Journal
Communist, No. 28/2002
7. Duong, Mac, 2000. “Poverty reduction during urbanisation in
Ho Chi Minh city”, Journal Ethnology, No.3/2000.
8. Hang, Nguyen Thi, 1996. “From experience of poverty
reduction over the last 5 years”, Journal Communist, No.
21/1996.
9. Hien, Vu, 1999. “Economic growth and the paradox of
growth”, Theoretical Information , No. 12/1999.

16
10.Hoa, Truong My, 2003. “Equality, solidarity, and mutual help
to develop among ethnic groups”, Journal Communist, No.
15/2003.
11. Hoan, Nguyen Minh, 2003. “To carry out social equality in
the development of a market with socialist orientation”,
Philosophy, No.6/2003.
12.Hung, Nguyen Tan, 1999. “To solve the contradiction
between economic growth and inequality in our country”,
Philosophy, No.10/1999.
13.Hung, Le Ngoc, 1999. “Social equality and integration for
women: practical issues and approaches”, Science of
Women, No.4/1999.
14. Huyen, Nguyen Van, 2002. “To build a market economy for
a human society”, Philosophy, No.7/2002
15.Khac, Chu, 1986. “Rural women can have equal rights with
men?”, Sociology, No.1/1986.
16.Khai, Phan Van, 2002. “To develop a market with socialist
orientation, to build people solidarity and to promote
democracy in economic activities”, Journal Communist, No.
6/2002.
17.Long, Hoang Xuan, 1999. “Identify the relation between
economic growth and social equality in the transition period
tyo a market mechanism in Vietnam”, Social Sciences, No.
4/1999.
18.Manh, Nong Duc, 1990. “Some urgent issues in our
country’s areas of ethnic minorities”, Journal Communist, No.

17
 10/1990.
19.-----, 2004. “Harmonised development of economy and
culture to realise social progress and equality”, Journal
Ideology and Culture, No. 2/2004.
20.Nghia, Le Huu, 2003. “Role of VCP leadership and state
management in the development of market with socialist
orientation”, Journal Communist, No. 31/2003.
21.Ngoan, Vu Huu, 1982. “Economic interests in transitional
period to socialism in our country”, Journal Communist, No.
3/1982.
22. Quang, Pham Ngoc, 2002. “Market and Socialism
revisited”, Ideology and Culture, No.3/2002.
23.Que, Nguyen Tran, 1990. “Social policies and people life over
the last 45 years”, Economic Studies, No.5/1990.
24.Sam, Dao Xuan, 1982. “The economic interest issue in
practice of the present economic management”, Economic
Studies, No.4/1982.
25.Son, Bach Minh, 1993. “Equality is an important element to
promote healthy social-economic development”, Economic
Studies, No.3/1993.
26.Son, Truong, 1988a. “To use and reform economic sectors
correctly”, Journal Communist, No. 1/1988.
27.------, 1988b. “Reply to the article ‘Equality and Inequality’ ”,
Journal Communist, No. 7/1988.
28.Thang, Bui Tat, 1999. “Economic growth and income
distribution in Vietnam”, Economic Studies, No.6/1999.

18
29.Tho, Nguyen Huu, 1984. “Socio-economic Management by
laws”, Journal Communist, No. 10/1984.
30. Tho, Tran Van, 1999. “Economic development and social
equality”, Theoretical Activities, No. 1/1999.
31.Trong, Le, 1980. “On labour compensation in agricultural
cooperatives”, Economic Studies, No.6/1980.
32.Trong, Nguyen Phu, 1988. “Can Party members have private
business?”, Journal Communist, No. 9/1988.
33.Tung, Dao Duy, 1982. “On three economic interests”, Journal
Communist, No. 3/1982.
34.Tung, Do The, 1988. “Equality and Inequality”, Journal
Communist, No. 7/1988.
35.VCP, 1976. Documents of the 4th Congress, National Political
Publishing House.
36.VCP, 1982. Documents of the 5th Congress, National Political
Publishing House.
37.VCP, 1987. Documents of the 6th Congress, National Political
Publishing House.
38.VCP, 1991. Documents of the 7th Congress, National Political
Publishing House.
39.VCP, 1996. Documents of the 8th Congress, National Political
Publishing House.
40.VCP, 2001. Documents of the 9th Congress, National Political
Publishing House.

19
VII.APPENDIX: List of articles

I/ Tạp chí cộng sản (Journal “Communist” )

Author Article Journal No./year

1 Đào Duy Tùng Bàn về ba lợi ích tccs 2/82
2 LS NHữu Thọ Quản lý KTXH bằng P/Luật Tccs 10/84
3 Trường Sơn Sử dụng và c/tạo đúng đắn cácTPk/t Tccs1/88
4 Bùi Hiền CBXH và sự p/t cân đối g/dục với kt tccs1/88
5 Đinh thu Cúc n/dăn và n/thôn vn h/nay, những v/đ cần quan tâm tccs5/88
6 Đỗ thế Tùng Bình đẳng và không bình đẳng tccs 7/88
7 Ng phú Trọng đảng viên có được làm k/tế không tccs9/88
8 Hội thảo KH v/đ dân chủ ở nước ta,T/trạng và K/nghị tccs2/90
10 Nông Đ mạnh mấy v/đ cấp bách ở các vùng d/tộc… tccs10/90
11 Ng thị Hằng từ th/tiễn 5 năm xoá đói giàm nghèo tccs21/96
12 Tào H Phùng Kích cầu để phục vụ tăng trưởng k/tế tccs1/2000
13 Lê Khả Phiêu để xứng đáng với lòng tin của dân tccs13/00
14 Ng T Hằng V/làm trong ch/lược p/t kt-xh 2000-2010 tccs 20/00
15 Ng T Hằng C/sách xh trong p/triển đ/nước tccs 21/00
16 Ng T Hằng bước tiến mới trong c/sách x/đóig/nghèo tccs5/01
17 Phan V Khải P/triển nền kttt định hướng xhcn…p/huy dân chu trng tccs 6/02
đời sống ktế
18 Đàm V Cường tìm lời giải cho b/toán c/bằng trong.... tccs12/02
19 Võ chí Công k/quyết đ.tranh chống bệnh q/liêu… tccs16/02
20 Ng Tấn Dũng để n/nghiệp,n/thôn pt bền vững,n/thôn… tccs28/02
21 Trg Mỹ Hoa b/đẳng đ/kêt, t/trợ giúp nhau cùng p/t tccs 15/03
22 Nguyễn Túc x/đói, g/nghèo, cống hiến t/ lớn của HCM tccs 19/03
23 Ng T Hằng c/cách à t/hiện tốt c/sách ưu đãi ng có côg tccs21/03
24 Lê H Nghiã v/trò l/đạo của đcsvn và q/lý củ n/nước… tccs11/03
25 Huỳnh Đảm nghe dân nói. nói dân hiểu, làm dân tin… tccs
26 Phạm G Khiêm T/hiện qcdccs găn với x/dựnghtctcs tccs9/04

II/ TẠP CHÍ NGHIÊN CỨU KINH TẾ (Econnomic Studies)

Author Article Journal No./year

1 Lê Trọng về thù lao l/động trong htx nông nghiệp nckt 6/80
2 Đào X Sâm
3 Ng Văn Quát
4 Bùi Huy Khoát
5 Ng trần Quế
6 Bạch Minh Sơn
7 Bùi tất Thắng
8 Vũ anh Tuấn
9 Ng ái Đoàn
10 Vũ Ng Nhung
11 Võ hùng Dũng
v/đ lợi ích k/tế trong t/tiễn qlýkt h/nay nckt 4/82
chống l/phát, chìa khoá ổ/định t/hình ktế nckt1+2/88
L/phát trong nền ktế nước ta h/nay….. nckt1+2/88
Các c/sách xh và đ/sống nh/dân 40năm ... nckt 5/90
b/đẳng là nh/tố q/trọng thúc đẩy nền kt… nckt 3/ 93
T/trưởng ktế và p/phối thu nhập ở vn nckt 6/99
P/luật với t.trưởng ktế và công bằng xh nckt 10/99
L/động, tiền lương và sự p/ triển nckt2/2000
Có thể dùng tiền để t/hiện c/bẵngxhcn…. nckt 3/02
T/trưởng và cơ cấu k/tế vn từ 75-98 nckt 7/ 00

nckt 8/ 00
12 Ngô Q Thành các định tố của bất b/đẳng về thu nhập… nckt 8/00
13 Đỗ kim Chung đ/giá t/động của d/án p/t n/thôn đến cbxh. nckt 8/00
14 Ng quốc Hùng T/trửơgkt và q/trình CNH,HĐH các… nckt 9/00
15 Trần Văn Tùng q/hệ giữa thiết chế dc với ch/lượng t/trởg nckt111/02

16 Trần T Nhung ttkt đi đôi với việc g/q các v/đ p/lợi xh p/t kt 8/00
17 Phạm Q Phan các t/phần k/t trong q/trình đ/mới ở vn p/tkt 4/02
18 Đoàn hoà thuận hội nhập k/t với v/đ ngh/đói và bbđ ở vn p/tkt 12/02
19 Phan N Trung q/lý k/tế của nh/nước trog nền kttt ở vn… p/tkt56/02
20 Phan Th Phố suy nghĩ về mô hình kttt ở vn p/tkt 61/02
21 Lê Khoa P/huy mọi nguồn lực để p/t ktế p/tkt 9/200
22 Trần Thị Lý g/q mối q/hệ giữa ttkt và p/lợi x/h ở n/ta p/tkt 36/00
23 Lê Văn Tích T/tưởng HCM về xd và p/triển k/tế vn k/t&DB5/00
24 Võ hùng Dũng T/trưởng k/t nhìn từ c/cấu l/động và đ/tư kt&db7/00

và8/2000
25 Trần văn Tùng nghịch lý trong t/trưởng ktế của vn nhữgv/đk/t

t/giới 5/85
26 Trần văn Quế k/tế vn thập kỷ90, một số t/tựu và v/đề nv/đkttg4/00
III/ Các tạp chí:“Sinh hoạt lý luận”; “Nghiên cứu lý luận”; “Thông tin lý luận”; “Quốc phòng toàn dân”;
“Tư tưởng văn hoá”; “Văn học nghệ thuật”; “Con số và sự kiện”

S Author Article Journal No./year

1 Trần văn Thọ P/t kt và cbxh đ/giá thành quả đ/mới và suy nghĩ về SHLL1/99
1 ch/lược p/t của vn
1 Ng sinh Cúc 30 năm HTH n/nghiệp nước ta TTLL 11/89

21
2
1 Hoàng X Long nhận dạng mối q/hệ giữa ttkt và cbxh trong q/trình c/đổi ttkhxh 4/99
3 sang c/chế kttt ởvn
4 Đỗ Quang Khắc chất lượng nguồn nhân lực,nhân tố q/định cho sự t/trưởng SHLL1/00
k/tế nước ta
5 Vũ Hiền T/trưởng kt và ng/lý của sự t/trưởng TTLL12/99
6 Đinh thế Định phân hoá giầu nghèo và t/hiện cbxh ở NCLL6/ 00

n/thôn bấc trtung bộ

7 Vũ anh Tuấn công bằng và p/luật, từ l/sử đến h/tại SHLL5/ 00
8 Trần M Châu hiệu qủa và công băng trong nền kttt KHCT6/ 00
9 Ng sinh Cúc TTKT và an ninh l/thực của vn 15 năm đổi mới 1986- c/số&s/kiện6/
2000 2000
1 Phạm tất Dong TTKT đi đôi với cbxh, một nội dung của QPTD7/ 00
0 k/tế t/trường đ/hướng xhcn
1 Phạm n Quang Trở lại v/đề k/tế t/trường và cnxh TTVH3/ 02
1
1 Ng văn Huyên sự biến đổi các g/trị văn hoá đ/đức trog nền kttt vàd v/đ xd vh ng/thuật 6/
2 nền v/h đ/đức mới 02
1 Ng văn Đang v/trò q/lý xh của nh./nước trong nền kttt.. Lđ&cđ8/ 02
3
14 Phạm T Khiết một số v/đ về t/ trưởng k/ tế của vn SHLL3/ 99
IV/ CÁC TẠP CHÍ: XÃ HỘI HỌC, KHOA HỌC VỀ PHỤ NỮ; TƯ TƯỞNG VĂN HOÁ; LUẬT HỌC;
NGHIÊN CỨU LẬP PHÁP; DÂN TỘC HỌC; CON SỐ & SỰ KIỆN; CÔNG TÁC KHOA GIÁO; THƯƠNG
MẠI VÀ TẠP CHÍ TRIẾT HỌC

STT tác giả Tên bài tạp chí

1 Chu Khắc
2 Lê ngọc Hùng
3 Trương Thúy Hằng
4 Trần Thái Dương
5 Phùng v Hùng
6 Mạc Đường
7 Minh Hoài
P/nữ n/thôn có b/đẳng với nam giới o? XHH 1/ 86
cbxh và hội nhập xh đối với p/nữ,một số v/đ t/tiễn và khoa học về p/nữ
p/pháp tiếp cận 4/ 99
Q/ hệ giữa d/số và t/trưởng k/tế TTVH7/ 99
Về q/lý đối với k/tế nh/nước trong nền k/tế t/trường luật học 2/ 02
đ/hướng xhcn
v/trò của nh/nước trong x/d nền k/tế t/trường ở VN n/clập pháp 4/ 02
v/đ giảm nghèo trong q/trình đô thị hoá ở TPHCM Dân tộc học
3/2000
TTKT và g/q việc làm ở nước ta h/nay cs&sk

22
8 TTKT/ p/triển k/tế, t/bộ xh c/tác khoa giáo
1/2000
9 C/lượng t/trưởng, chủ q/trọng tại kỳ họp thứ 2 q/hội thương mại
khoáXI 33/2002
10 Nông Đ Mạnh P/triển h/hoà giữa k/tế vàv/hoá, t/hiện t/bộ và công TTVH 2/ 04
bằng xh
11 Ng tấn Hùng g/q mâu thuẫn nhằm t/ hiện tốt việc kết hợp giữa Triết học 5/99
t/trưởngk/ t và cbxh ở nước ta
12 Lê Hồg Khánh v/ đề t/ hiện cbxh ở nước ta h/ nay Tr/h 2/ 01
13 Phạm V Đức Mối q/hệ giữa l/ích cá nhân và đ/đức xh trong nền Tr/ h 1/ 02
kttt ở vn h/ nay
14 Lê Ng Anh v/đ g/dục đ/đức và nếp ssóngv/h g/đình tr/thống Tr/h 1/ 02
trong nền kttt ở n/ta h/nay
15 Thành Duy v/trò của v/h đ/đức trog nền kttt ở n/ ta Tr/ h2/ 02
16 Ng đình Hoà k/học,c/nghệ và đ/đức trog nên kttt … Tr/h 6/02
17 Đỗ lan Hiền v/đ x/dựng đ/đức trog bối cảnh p/triển nền k/tế t/ Tr/h 4/02
trường
18 Ng thị Khoa đ/đức g/đình trong nền k/tế t/trường Tr/h 4/02
19 Lê Tuyết Ba v/trò của đ/đức đ/với sự p/triển kt-xh trong đ/kiện Tr/ h5/02
nền k/tế t/trường
20 Ng văn Huyên x/d nền kttt vì một xh nhân văn Tr/h 7/02
21 Ng minh Hoàn T/hiện cbxh trog đ/k p/t nền kttt ở n/ta Tr/h 6/03

23