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 19791986) => 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 (1993now) => 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 industrialtrade 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,
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
1

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:
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.
2

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 longterm 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) ii) iii) iv) Equality and economic growth (Khai, 2002) Equality among ethnic groups (Hoa, 2003) Equality between rural and urban areas (Dung, 2002) 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 The state sector, while retained advantages in mobilising vast potential resources of society and overseas” (ibid, p.12-13). “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, 12

the state should create an enviroment of “healthy

competitions” for all sectors, against monoply. reduce dratically the state direct intervention in economic activities” (Khai, 2002).

“To To

administrative

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”. 2000). people. (Hang, To establish special fund to help vulnerable Especially, the state has to carry out 13

groups such as poor, unemployed, disable, invalid

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. created a dynamism of Vietnam development.

This

“natural” tendency was in contradiction with socialist ideals,

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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Đào Duy Tùng LS NHữu Thọ Trường Sơn Bùi Hiền Đinh thu Cúc Đỗ thế Tùng Ng phú Trọng Hội thảo KH Nông Đ mạnh Ng thị Hằng Tào H Phùng Lê Khả Phiêu Ng T Hằng Ng T Hằng Ng T Hằng Phan V Khải Đàm V Cường Võ chí Công Ng Tấn Dũng Trg Mỹ Hoa Nguyễn Túc Ng T Hằng Lê H Nghiã Huỳnh Đảm Phạm G Khiêm Article Bàn về ba lợi ích Quản lý KTXH bằng P/Luật Sử dụng và c/tạo đúng đắn cácTPk/t CBXH và sự p/t cân đối g/dục với kt n/dăn và n/thôn vn h/nay, những v/đ cần quan tâm Bình đẳng và không bình đẳng đảng viên có được làm k/tế không v/đ dân chủ ở nước ta,T/trạng và K/nghị mấy v/đ cấp bách ở các vùng d/tộc… từ th/tiễn 5 năm xoá đói giàm nghèo Kích cầu để phục vụ tăng trưởng k/tế để xứng đáng với lòng tin của dân V/làm trong ch/lược p/t kt-xh 2000-2010 C/sách xh trong p/triển đ/nước bước tiến mới trong c/sách x/đóig/nghèo P/triển nền kttt định hướng xhcn…p/huy dân chu trng đời sống ktế tìm lời giải cho b/toán c/bằng trong.... k/quyết đ.tranh chống bệnh q/liêu… để n/nghiệp,n/thôn pt bền vững,n/thôn… b/đẳng đ/kêt, t/trợ giúp nhau cùng p/t x/đói, g/nghèo, cống hiến t/ lớn của HCM c/cách à t/hiện tốt c/sách ưu đãi ng có côg v/trò l/đạo của đcsvn và q/lý củ n/nước… nghe dân nói. nói dân hiểu, làm dân tin… T/hiện qcdccs găn với x/dựnghtctcs tccs12/02 tccs16/02 tccs28/02 tccs 15/03 tccs 19/03 tccs21/03 tccs11/03 tccs tccs9/04 Journal No./year tccs 2/82 Tccs 10/84 Tccs1/88 tccs1/88 tccs5/88 tccs 7/88 tccs9/88 tccs2/90 tccs10/90 tccs21/96 tccs1/2000 tccs13/00 tccs 20/00 tccs 21/00 tccs5/01 tccs 6/02

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

Author 1 Lê Trọng

Article về thù lao l/động trong htx nông nghiệp

Journal No./year nckt 6/80

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Đào X Sâm Ng Văn Quát Bùi Huy Khoát Ng trần Quế Bạch Minh Sơn Bùi tất Thắng Vũ anh Tuấn Ng ái Đoàn Vũ Ng Nhung Võ hùng Dũng

v/đ lợi ích k/tế trong t/tiễn qlýkt h/nay chống l/phát, chìa khoá ổ/định t/hình ktế L/phát trong nền ktế nước ta h/nay….. Các c/sách xh và đ/sống nh/dân 40năm ... b/đẳng là nh/tố q/trọng thúc đẩy nền kt… T/trưởng ktế và p/phối thu nhập ở vn P/luật với t.trưởng ktế và công bằng xh L/động, tiền lương và sự p/ triển Có thể dùng tiền để t/hiện c/bẵngxhcn…. T/trưởng và cơ cấu k/tế vn từ 75-98

nckt 4/82 nckt1+2/88 nckt1+2/88 nckt 5/90 nckt 3/ 93 nckt 6/99 nckt 10/99 nckt2/2000 nckt 3/02 nckt 7/ 00 nckt 8/ 00

12 13 14 15

Ngô Q Thành Đỗ kim Chung Ng quốc Hùng Trần Văn Tùng

các định tố của bất b/đẳng về thu nhập… đ/giá t/động của d/án p/t n/thôn đến cbxh. T/trửơgkt và q/trình CNH,HĐH các… q/hệ giữa thiết chế dc với ch/lượng t/trởg

nckt 8/00 nckt 8/00 nckt 9/00 nckt111/02

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Trần T Nhung Phạm Q Phan Đoàn hoà thuận Phan N Trung Phan Th Phố Lê Khoa Trần Thị Lý Lê Văn Tích Võ hùng Dũng

ttkt đi đôi với việc g/q các v/đ p/lợi xh các t/phần k/t trong q/trình đ/mới ở vn hội nhập k/t với v/đ ngh/đói và bbđ ở vn q/lý k/tế của nh/nước trog nền kttt ở vn… suy nghĩ về mô hình kttt ở vn P/huy mọi nguồn lực để p/t ktế g/q mối q/hệ giữa ttkt và p/lợi x/h ở n/ta T/tưởng HCM về xd và p/triển k/tế vn T/trưởng k/t nhìn từ c/cấu l/động và đ/tư

p/t kt 8/00 p/tkt 4/02 p/tkt 12/02 p/tkt56/02 p/tkt 61/02 p/tkt 9/200 p/tkt 36/00 k/t&DB5/00 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 1

Author

Article P/t kt và cbxh đ/giá thành quả đ/mới và suy nghĩ về ch/lược p/t của vn 30 năm HTH n/nghiệp nước ta

Journal No./year SHLL1/99 TTLL 11/89

1 Trần văn Thọ 1 Ng sinh Cúc

21

2 1 Hoàng X Long 3 4 Đỗ Quang Khắc 5 Vũ Hiền 6 Đinh thế Định nhận dạng mối q/hệ giữa ttkt và cbxh trong q/trình c/đổi sang c/chế kttt ởvn chất lượng nguồn nhân lực,nhân tố q/định cho sự t/trưởng k/tế nước ta T/trưởng kt và ng/lý của sự t/trưởng phân hoá giầu nghèo và t/hiện cbxh ở n/thôn bấc trtung bộ 7 Vũ anh Tuấn 8 Trần M Châu 9 Ng sinh Cúc 1 Phạm tất Dong 0 1 Phạm n Quang 1 1 Ng văn Huyên 2 1 Ng văn Đang 3 14 Phạm T Khiết một số v/đ về t/ trưởng k/ tế của vn SHLL3/ 99 sự biến đổi các g/trị văn hoá đ/đức trog nền kttt vàd v/đ xd nền v/h đ/đức mới v/trò q/lý xh của nh./nước trong nền kttt.. vh ng/thuật 6/ 02 Lđ&cđ8/ 02 công bằng và p/luật, từ l/sử đến h/tại hiệu qủa và công băng trong nền kttt TTKT và an ninh l/thực của vn 15 năm đổi mới 19862000 TTKT đi đôi với cbxh, một nội dung của k/tế t/trường đ/hướng xhcn Trở lại v/đề k/tế t/trường và cnxh TTVH3/ 02 SHLL5/ 00 KHCT6/ 00 c/số&s/kiện6/ 2000 QPTD7/ 00 TTLL12/99 NCLL6/ 00 SHLL1/00 ttkhxh 4/99

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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

tác giả Chu Khắc Lê ngọc Hùng Trương Thúy Hằng Trần Thái Dương Phùng v Hùng Mạc Đường Minh Hoài

Tên bài P/nữ n/thôn có b/đẳng với nam giới o? cbxh và hội nhập xh đối với p/nữ,một số v/đ t/tiễn và p/pháp tiếp cận Q/ hệ giữa d/số và t/trưởng k/tế Về q/lý đối với k/tế nh/nước trong nền k/tế t/trường đ/hướng xhcn v/trò của nh/nước trong x/d nền k/tế t/trường ở VN v/đ giảm nghèo trong q/trình đô thị hoá ở TPHCM TTKT và g/q việc làm ở nước ta h/nay

tạp chí XHH 1/ 86 khoa học về p/nữ 4/ 99 TTVH7/ 99 luật học 2/ 02

n/clập pháp 4/ 02 Dân tộc học 3/2000 cs&sk

22

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Nông Đ Mạnh Ng tấn Hùng Lê Hồg Khánh Phạm V Đức Lê Ng Anh Thành Duy Ng đình Hoà Đỗ lan Hiền Ng thị Khoa Lê Tuyết Ba Ng văn Huyên Ng minh Hoàn

TTKT/ p/triển k/tế, t/bộ xh C/lượng t/trưởng, chủ q/trọng tại kỳ họp thứ 2 q/hội khoáXI P/triển h/hoà giữa k/tế vàv/hoá, t/hiện t/bộ và công bằng xh g/q mâu thuẫn nhằm t/ hiện tốt việc kết hợp giữa t/trưởngk/ t và cbxh ở nước ta v/ đề t/ hiện cbxh ở nước ta h/ nay Mối q/hệ giữa l/ích cá nhân và đ/đức xh trong nền kttt ở vn h/ nay v/đ g/dục đ/đức và nếp ssóngv/h g/đình tr/thống trong nền kttt ở n/ta h/nay v/trò của v/h đ/đức trog nền kttt ở n/ ta k/học,c/nghệ và đ/đức trog nên kttt … v/đ x/dựng đ/đức trog bối cảnh p/triển nền k/tế t/ trường đ/đức g/đình trong nền k/tế t/trường v/trò của đ/đức đ/với sự p/triển kt-xh trong đ/kiện nền k/tế t/trường x/d nền kttt vì một xh nhân văn T/hiện cbxh trog đ/k p/t nền kttt ở n/ta

c/tác khoa giáo 1/2000 thương mại 33/2002 TTVH 2/ 04 Triết học 5/99 Tr/h 2/ 01 Tr/ h 1/ 02 Tr/h 1/ 02 Tr/ h2/ 02 Tr/h 6/02 Tr/h 4/02 Tr/h 4/02 Tr/ h5/02 Tr/h 7/02 Tr/h 6/03

23