ALL Metrics

-

Views

¹ Ha Noi Pedagogical University 2, Phu Tho, Vietnam
² Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics, Hanoi, Vietnam

Pham Thi Thuy Van
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

LAI QUOC KHANH
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology

The concept of political culture emerged as a central analytical category in comparative political science during the mid-twentieth century. It was systematically articulated in The Civic Culture by Almond and Verba, who defined political culture as a pattern of subjective orientations toward political action, encompassing citizens’ attitudes, beliefs, values, and competencies in relation to the political system and their roles within it.⁴ This formulation marked a significant departure from purely institutional analyses of politics by emphasizing the psychological and normative dimensions underpinning political stability and democratic performance. Expanding this perspective, Pye conceptualized political culture as the total configuration of shared meanings, symbols, and value orientations through which individuals and groups define political roles and legitimate authority.⁵ In this view, political culture operates not merely as individual disposition but as a collective interpretive framework structuring political life.

Subsequent scholarship diversified the theoretical landscape. Inglehart advanced a modernization-based interpretation, arguing that socio-economic development generates a gradual shift from materialist priorities focused on economic and physical security toward post-materialist values emphasizing autonomy, participation, and self-expression.¹⁴ This transformation, he suggested, reshapes political culture and alters the foundations of legitimacy and governance. Building on this line of inquiry, Welzel proposed that emancipative values, centered on individual choice and equal opportunity, constitute an internal cultural force sustaining democratic development and institutional accountability.¹⁵ From a complementary institutional perspective, Putnam demonstrated that civic traditions and social capital significantly influence governmental performance, illustrating the reciprocal relationship between cultural norms of trust and the effectiveness of public institutions.⁷ Together, these approaches converge on the understanding that political culture constitutes a system of collectively shared values and behavioral expectations that mediates the relationship between citizens and the state, thereby shaping governance outcomes.

Despite their analytical sophistication, these theoretical models were largely developed within Western liberal democratic contexts. Their underlying assumption pluralist competition, individualist value systems, and electoral accountability, may not fully capture the structural and ideological configurations of socialist-oriented or developing societies. In such contexts, political culture is closely intertwined with collective value orientations, national traditions, and the guiding role of a ruling party in directing socio-economic transformation. The normative and institutional foundations of political legitimacy may therefore differ substantially from those assumed in liberal-democratic paradigms.

Within the Vietnamese context, the ideational foundations of political culture are deeply rooted in Marxism–Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought. From a Marxist–Leninist perspective, political culture cannot be understood as a peripheral or purely symbolic phenomenon; rather, it constitutes a dynamic component of the broader superstructural formation that both reflects and shapes material conditions. Economic relations condition the political and ideological superstructure, yet ideology possesses a relative autonomy and transformative capacity once internalized by social actors.¹⁶ In this sense, political culture operates dialectically: it emerges from socio-economic relations yet becomes a material force when embedded in collective consciousness and organized political practice.

Lenin’s theoretical development further clarified this mediating function. His conception of political consciousness emphasized the necessity of organized ideological education in transforming spontaneous class awareness into coherent political agency.¹⁷ Political culture, in this view, is cultivated through disciplined organization, moral commitment, and collective purpose. The model fuses ethical rigor and institutional discipline, in which legitimacy derives not only from formal authority but also from demonstrable alignment with mass interests and historical mission.¹⁸ Consequently, political culture within a Marxist–Leninist framework functions as an integrative mechanism that binds leadership, ideology, and popular mobilization into a coherent political project. Ho Chi Minh’s contributions represent both continuity and contextual innovation within this tradition. Rather than treating culture as subordinate to politics, he conceptualized it as an orienting force shaping the nation’s ethical and developmental trajectory.⁸ Ho Chi Minh Thought synthesizes Marxist theory with Vietnamese historical traditions and communitarian moral philosophy, producing a distinctive moral-political framework centered on public virtue, collective solidarity, and national independence.¹⁹ In this framework, political legitimacy is inseparable from moral character.

Leadership competence is evaluated not solely by administrative efficiency but also by integrity, self-discipline, and devotion to the public good. Political culture thus becomes embodied in ethical conduct and everyday governance practice. Analytically, Ho Chi Minh’s approach reframes political culture as a triadic structure comprising popular orientation, ethical foundation, and openness to civilizational exchange. First, political culture is human-centered, affirming that state power must ultimately serve the people and derive legitimacy from their trust. Second, it is grounded in moral discipline, emphasizing integrity, thrift, impartiality, and responsibility as conditions of sustainable authority. Third, it remains outward-looking and adaptive, capable of integrating global knowledge while preserving national identity. This ethical–institutional synthesis contributes heavily to regime resilience and governance stability during periods of rapid economic transformation.²⁰

Accordingly, the study of Vietnamese political culture requires a theoretical synthesis that moves beyond the dichotomy between Western civic-cultural models and purely institutional analyses. It calls for an approach that integrates value systems, ideological foundations, and governance structures within a dialectical framework. Such an approach recognizes political culture as a dynamic configuration of values, norms, and institutional practices that evolve in response to socio-economic transformation while maintaining continuity with foundational ideological principles.

The comparative analysis of political culture reveals both divergence and convergence between Western civic-cultural theory and the Marxist–Leninist–Ho Chi Minh tradition. Western scholarship has historically emphasized citizens’ beliefs, participatory norms,⁴ and civic behavior as determinants of democratic stability.⁷ Within this framework, political culture is often conceptualized as a bottom-up phenomenon that conditions institutional effectiveness through trust, social capital, and value orientations. By contrast, the Vietnamese tradition foregrounds the ethical foundations of political authority and the legitimacy of power as central components of political culture. Rather than focusing primarily on individual attitudes, this tradition conceptualizes political culture as a morally structured relationship between leadership and the people, mediated by ideological coherence and collective purpose.

Despite these differences in emphasis, contemporary comparative research suggests that rigid dichotomies between Western and non-Western models are increasingly untenable. Fukuyama’s analysis of political order argues that sustainable development depends on the interplay between state capacity, rule-based governance, and cultural norms that reinforce institutional discipline and public trust.⁶ His assessment of East Asian developmental trajectories underscores the importance of communitarian values and administrative integrity, traits that resonate with elements of Marxist–Leninist political ethics. Similarly, Inglehart and Welzel’s revised modernization theory acknowledges that governance quality is shaped by culturally embedded value systems and need not replicate Western historical pathways, provided governance institutions maintain effectiveness and public legitimacy.²¹ Political cultures, therefore, emerges as a crucial mediating variable across diverse developmental models, linking normative orientations with institutional outcomes.

Situated within this evolving theoretical landscape, Vietnam represents a distinctive case in which Marxist–Leninist principles, Ho Chi Minh’s moral–political philosophy, and selective engagement with global governance norms intersect. Modern institutional reforms have been accompanied by the preservation of ideological continuity and ethical discourse.²⁰ Rather than constituting a static framework, Vietnamese political culture operates as a transformative synthesis: it absorbs elements of global administrative practice and modernization theory while maintaining a normative core centered on collective welfare, social harmony, and disciplined governance.

2.1 The three-tier structure of Vietnamese political culture

Reflecting classic comparative definitions put forth by Almond⁴ and Putnam,⁷ alongside domestic tenets, Vietnamese political culture operates through a three-tier structure in which values, behavior, and institutions are mutually constitutive rather than analytically separable domains. Rather than functioning as abstract categories, the three tiers, values–ideology, norms–behavior, and institutions–governance culture, form a dynamic system in which legitimacy, participation, and state capacity are continuously negotiated as represented in Figure 1.

The first tier, labeled The Values-Ideology Tier, constitutes the normative core of the system. Core values such as patriotism, solidarity, communitarian responsibility, and public-spirited morality remain central to political discourse and institutional narratives. Unlike liberal-individualist traditions that foreground autonomous civic agency, the Vietnamese model prioritizes collective cohesion as a stabilizing principle. This does not imply resistance to universal governance norms; rather, the analysis shows a dual-value configuration in which traditional communitarian ethics coexist with modern principles such as the rule of law, transparency, and accountability.²²

The second tier, labeled The Norms–Behavior Tier, translates core values into observable civic and administrative practices. Secondary evidence from governance performance assessments, including the Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI), indicates gradual increases in citizen engagement, local oversight participation, and digital interaction with authorities over the past decade.¹² This transition remains embedded within a cooperative framework; participation tends to emphasize constructive engagement and social stability rather than adversarial contestation.²² At the elite level, the behavioral dimension is expressed through public service ethics, accountability, and power control, prioritizing the alignment of ethical discourse with managerial performance.²³ To ensure empirical rigor, clear boundaries must be maintained between individual bureaucratic behavior and the broader institutional design that dictates it.

The tier of The Institutions–Governance Culture represents the formalization of values and behavioral expectations into legal and administrative frameworks. Ongoing reforms toward a socialist rule-of-law state, the expansion of digital governance, and transparency mechanisms demonstrate efforts to institutionalize political culture within operational systems.¹² Strong institutions reinforce civic trust, while weak institutional enforcement can undermine normative commitments. Overall, the interaction between these three tiers reveals a critical feedback mechanism: a robust value system encourages constructive behavior; positive behavior strengthens institutional effectiveness; effective institutions, in turn, reinforce normative legitimacy.

2.2 The role of political culture in national development

The findings suggest that political culture in Vietnam functions as a constitutive force shaping governance capacity, institutional stability, and developmental orientation.⁷ Within this analytical framework, Vietnam’s post-Renovation trajectory indicates that political culture has played a structuring role in national development across several key dimensions.

First, political culture provides a foundational orientation for development. In Vietnam, the persistence of communitarian ethics, patriotism, and solidarity has shaped policy discourse, framing development not solely as economic growth but as national revitalization.²³ This orientation has facilitated continuity during structural transitions from a centrally planned to a socialist-oriented market economy, reducing ideological fragmentation during reform phases.²⁴ Thus, political culture functions as a stabilizing normative anchor during periods of rapid transformation.

Second, political culture operates as an internal driver of Renovation and innovation. The ethos of “daring to think, daring to do, daring to take responsibility” among administrative and political cadres has been repeatedly invoked as a catalyst for policy experimentation and adaptive governance.²³ Rather than undermining systemic coherence, controlled innovation has been legitimized through appeals to collective benefit and national aspiration, helping explain the relative consistency of reform momentum over four decades.

Third, political culture serves as an instrument of social regulation and institutional resilience. During major public crises, such as the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, high levels of social compliance, collective solidarity, and trust in public authority contributed to coordinated domestic responses. While trust levels fluctuate across contexts, these patterns suggest that communitarian norms can enhance regulatory effectiveness, though they must be understood alongside concrete administrative enforcement, legal sanctions, and public health awareness.²⁵

Fourth, political culture contributes to national soft power. Vietnam’s diplomatic profile over the past decade, particularly its tenure as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and its ASEAN Chairmanship, reflects a political identity centered on dialogue, multilateralism, and responsible international engagement.²⁶ Fifth, political culture serves as a measure of human quality and sustainable societal development. The policy orientation toward balancing participatory expansion with institutional coherence indicates recognition that modernization entails not only economic upgrading but also ethical refinement, public service ethics, and comprehensive anti-corruption reforms.

3.1 The process of formation and development

The longitudinal data presented in Table 1 provide empirical support for the argument that Vietnam’s political culture has evolved in close interaction with socio-economic transformation during the Renovation period. Macro-developmental indicators, human development scores, and public trust dynamics collectively illustrate how shifts in values, institutional practices, and state–society relations have unfolded across successive reform phases.²⁷ The early Renovation period (1986–2000) focused primarily on economic stabilization and institutional restructuring. GDP per capita increased from USD 98 in 1990 to USD 402 in 2000, while the Human Development Index (HDI) rose from 0.472 to 0.583. During this transition, the political-cultural emphasis on solidarity and national recovery functioned as a legitimizing foundation, consolidating systemic trust through improved material welfare.²⁸

The period 2000–2010 demonstrated both quantitative expansion and qualitative transformation. GDP per capita rose to USD 1,330, and HDI increased to 0.671. By 2010, governance-specific metrics began to capture the institutional dimension of political culture: the PAPI index recorded an average score of 36.5, while trust in government reached 64% according to the Edelman Trust Barometer. This phase reflects a gradual shift toward performance-based legitimacy, in which rising participation and incremental administrative reforms institutionalized collective responsibility. The subsequent decade (2010–2020) marked a phase of consolidation and institutional deepening. GDP per capita rose to USD 2,786, and HDI increased to 0.704. Governance indicators climbed notably, with PAPI scores reaching 42.2 and trust in government rising to 79%.²³ This period coincided with intensified anti-corruption campaigns, strengthened Party discipline, and expanded digital governance initiatives, suggesting improved congruence among the three tiers of political culture.

The most recent consolidated datasets from the World Bank²⁹ demonstrate continued upward movement across these dimensions. GDP per capita reached USD 4,284, HDI increased to 0.726, PAPI scores rose to 43.7,³⁰ and trust in government remained resilient at 80%.³¹ While macro indicators like GDP, HDI, and digital indices are valuable, they should be interpreted as indirect correlates rather than absolute, direct measures of internal political-cultural shifts. Nonetheless, the overall upward trajectory over three decades indicates that political culture has successfully transitioned from primarily historical-ideological cohesion toward institutionalized accountability and rule-of-law consolidation.²³

3.2 Notable achievements

The macro-developmental indicators are reinforced by improvements in governance quality, innovation performance, ethical rectification, and digital participation. The data presented in Table 2 substantiate the argument that political culture has increasingly been integrated within modern governance frameworks. First, political trust and social consensus appear to have been sustainably reinforced. Consistently high levels of public confidence place Vietnam among comparatively high-trust nations in the Asia–Pacific region. From an analytical perspective, this pattern suggests that the foundational governance principles regarding popular feedback and oversight have contributed to a perception of participatory inclusion and distributive responsiveness. Second, the structural quality of institutions and national governance demonstrates measurable improvement.²⁵ Vietnam ranked 63rd out of 193 countries in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Index³² and 46th out of 132 economies in the Global Innovation Index (GII).³³ The upward movement in PAPI scores from 39.5 in 2015 to 43.7 in recent assessments suggests incremental but consistent institutional strengthening at subnational levels. Similarly, improvements in the Provincial Competitiveness Index (PCI), reported by the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI), indicate a more predictable regulatory environment across diverse localities.³⁴

Third, political culture within the public administration has been strengthened through ethical institutionalization. Central Committee resolutions have placed heavy emphasis on Party building, anti-corruption, and exemplary conduct, aiming to align behavioral norms with declared values and reduce the gap between normative rhetoric and administrative practice.³⁵ Fourth, citizen participation in governance processes has become increasingly substantive through digital transformation. The Digital Transformation Index (DTI) shows a significant rise from 32.0 in 2015 to 64.1 in recent years, indicating accelerated integration of digital governance.³⁶ Platforms such as the National Public Service Portal have expanded direct communication channels, encouraging the emergence of an adaptive digital civic orientation.

3.3 Limitations and challenges

Despite substantial achievements, Vietnamese political culture continues to face structural and normative challenges. First, an operational gap remains between proclaimed ethical standards and practical administrative conduct at certain grassroots levels. Governance reports show that a notable portion of citizens still perceive local public-sector transparency as complex, indicating that improvements in aggregate indices are unevenly distributed and require stronger enforcement.¹² Second, structured social criticism and active civic proactiveness, particularly among certain youth cohorts, remain in a transitional stage. Sociological data indicate that while young people demonstrate highly supportive political awareness, their consistent, structured engagement in formal policy dialogue can be further enhanced. This divergence underscores that normative alignment sometimes outpaces institutionalized civic practice.³⁷

Third, the rapid expansion of the digital sphere poses vulnerabilities to informational trust. While Vietnam has tens of millions of active social media users, a substantial portion express concern about the authenticity of online political information.³⁸ This imbalance points to an ongoing need to cultivate digital citizenship norms, emphasizing responsibility, digital literacy, and information verification alongside pure connectivity.³⁹ Finally, globalization and intensifying global value competition raise strategic concerns regarding national political identity. Preserving the foundational tenets of Marxism–Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought while selectively absorbing global administrative practices necessitates effective normative filtering mechanisms. The current stage of Vietnamese political culture is thus characterized less by systemic instability than by the need for qualitative consolidation: strengthening ethical enforcement, expanding structured avenues for feedback, and institutionalizing digital responsibility.

3.4 Trends in political culture toward 2045

Three interrelated trends are reshaping the domestic political-cultural landscape. First, a transition from a mobilization-oriented model to a creativity-oriented culture is evident, emphasizing the renovation of thinking, constructive feedback, and proactive citizenship.⁴⁰ Second, political culture is increasingly embedded in digital transformation processes, signaling the emergence of digital citizenship norms grounded in administrative innovation.⁴¹ Third, national political identity is being carefully recalibrated within global integration, harmonizing traditional Vietnamese values with modern international principles of transparency and sustainable development.³⁵

3.5 Policy implications for the 2025–2045 period

Drawing on the foregoing theoretical and documentary analysis, five interrelated policy orientations are proposed to guide Vietnam’s developmental trajectory toward the 2045 horizon. First, there is a critical need to operationalize cultural–political awareness by integrating qualitative governance indicators into national statistical frameworks alongside established composite measures like the Human Development Index (HDI).⁴² Within this framework, criteria of integrity, responsibility, and service ethics must remain central to cadre evaluation systems. Second, modernizing political culture education within both the public administration system and general higher education is essential; this can be achieved by incorporating dedicated modules on digital citizenship, administrative ethics, and constructive dialogue to cultivate more informed civic participation.⁴¹ Third, mechanisms for periodic policy dialogue should be institutionalized, particularly through accessible digital platforms, thereby converting procedural openness and administrative accountability into core, everyday attributes of modern governance. Fourth, policymakers must formulate robust codes of conduct for online political engagement, intentionally incorporating digital trust, data privacy, and online responsibility into ongoing administrative reform assessments. Lastly, it is vital to integrate Vietnam’s historical traditions of cooperation,⁴¹ multilateralism, and diplomatic dialogue into a comprehensive, long-term international soft power strategy that aligns domestic research capacity with global sustainable development commitments.⁴³

3.6 Suggested amendments to the draft documents

Based on the analytical findings, several targeted adjustments are advisable for ongoing strategic planning. The explicit concept of political culture should be systematically utilized as an internal resource of the socialist rule-of-law state. A dedicated subsection on building digital political culture should be robustly incorporated within human development and digital society strategies. Furthermore, the close interdependence among culture, human beings, and institutions should be clearly articulated across policy sectors to avoid analytical fragmentation and to reaffirm the selective integration of global values consistent with national identity.

No primary data were generated or analyzed in this study. The manuscript is a literature-based review that relies entirely on previously published sources. All data presented in the tables and discussion were obtained from these sources and are fully referenced within the article.

• 1.  World Bank: World development indicators 2024. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2024.
• 2.  Edelman Trust Institute: Edelman trust barometer global report 2024. New York: Edelman; 2024.
• 3.  Communist Party of Vietnam: Draft political report submitted to the 14th National Congress of Delegates. Hanoi: Communist Party of Vietnam; 2025.
• 4.  Almond GA, Verba S: The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 1963.
• 5.  Pye LW, Verba S: Political culture and political development. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 1965. Publisher Full Text
• 6.  Fukuyama F: Political order and political decay: from the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. J Democracy. 2015; 26(1): 5–17. Publisher Full Text
• 7.  Putnam RD: Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 1993.
• 8.  Minh HC: Rectifying the working style. Hanoi: Truth Publishing House; 1950.
• 9.  Minh HC: Revolutionary morality. Hanoi: Truth Publishing House; 1958.
• 10.  WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization): Global innovation index 2023. Geneva: WIPO; 2023.
• 11.  Vietnam Ministry of Information and Communications: Vietnam digital transformation index report 2023. Hanoi: Information and Communications Publishing House; 2023.
• 12.  UNDP (United Nations Development Programme): Vietnam provincial governance and public administration performance index (PAPI) 2023. Hanoi: UNDP Viet Nam; 2023.
• 13.  Huntington SP: The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1996.
• 14.  Inglehart R: Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 1997.
• 15.  Welzel C: Freedom rising: human empowerment and the quest for emancipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
• 16.  Larrain J: Marxism and ideology reconsidered. Theory Cult. Soc. 2020; 37(7–8): 3–26. Publisher Full Text
• 17.  Harding N: Leninism and the transformation of political consciousness. Eur J Polit Theory. 2019; 18(2): 243–261. Publisher Full Text
• 18.  Saich T: Leninism and party-state resilience: theoretical reflections and contemporary implications. J. Contemp. Asia. 2021; 51(3): 365–382. Publisher Full Text
• 19.  Vu T: Ho Chi Minh Thought and the moral foundations of Vietnamese political legitimacy. J Southeast Asian Stud. 2020; 51(4): 567–589. Publisher Full Text
• 20.  Gainsborough M: Political culture and regime resilience in Vietnam. Contemp Southeast Asia. 2022; 44(2): 211–233. Publisher Full Text
• 21.  Inglehart R, Welzel C: Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: the human development sequence. Perspect. Polit. 2006; 4(4): 731–752. Publisher Full Text
• 22.  Inglehart R, Welzel C: Changing mass priorities: the link between modernization and democracy. Perspect. Polit. 2010; 8(2): 551–567. Publisher Full Text
• 23.  Fukuyama F: What is governance?. Governance. 2013; 26(3): 347–368. Publisher Full Text
• 24.  Huntington SP: The clash of civilizations?. Foreign Aff. 1993; 72(3): 22–49. Publisher Full Text
• 25.  Edelman: Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report. New York: Edelman; 2022.
• 26.  Nye JS Jr: Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs; 2004.
• 27.  Sen A: Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 1999.
• 28.  North DC: Institutions. J. Econ. Perspect. 1991; 5(1): 97–112. Publisher Full Text
• 29.  World Bank: World Development Indicators: Vietnam GDP per capita (current US$). Washington (DC): World Bank; 2024.
• 30.  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): Human Development Report 2024: Vietnam country data. New York: UNDP; 2024.
• 31.  Edelman: Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report. New York: Edelman; 2024.
• 32.  Sachs JD, Lafortune G, Fuller G, et al.: Sustainable Development Report 2023. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2023. Publisher Full Text
• 33.  World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): Global Innovation Index 2023. Geneva: WIPO; 2023.
• 34.  General Statistics Office of Vietnam: Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2024. Hanoi: Statistical Publishing House; 2024.
• 35.  Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI): Provincial Competitiveness Index 2023 Report. Hanoi: VCCI; 2023.
• 36.  Ministry of Information and Communications: Digital Transformation Index (DTI) Report 2023. Hanoi: MIC; 2023.
• 37.  Institute of Sociology: Youth Political Participation Survey Report. Hanoi: Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences; 2022.
• 38.  We Are Social: Digital 2024: Vietnam. London: We Are Social; 2024.
• 39.  Author’s sociological survey: Levels of trust and political participation by social group. Hanoi: 2025.
• 40.  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): PAPI 2023 Report: Measuring Governance and Public Administration Performance in Viet Nam. Hanoi: UNDP; 2023.
• 41.  Ministry of Information and Communications. Digital Transformation Index 2023 Report. Hanoi: MIC; 2023.
• 42.  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): Human Development Report 2020: The next frontier—human development and the Anthropocene. New York: UNDP; 2020.
• 43.  Sustainable Development Solutions Network: Sustainable Development Report 2024. Paris: SDSN; 2024.

Download

Export To

metrics

Citations

CITE

how to cite this article

Thuy Van PT and KHANH LQ. VIETNAMESE POLITICAL CULTURE: STRUCTURE, ROLE, AND DEVELOPMENT ORIENTATION IN THE NEW ERA [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 15:676 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177771.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Current Reviewer Status: ?

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 25 Aug 2026

Revised

Reviewer Report 07 Sep 2026

Nguyen Duy Quynh, VNU University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Hanoi, Hanoi, Vietnam 

Approved

VIEWS 0

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 07 May 2026

Reviewer Report 29 May 2026

Nguyen Duy Quynh, VNU University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Hanoi, Hanoi, Vietnam 

Approved with Reservations

VIEWS 0

Reviewer Report 27 May 2026

Vivi Indra Amelia Nasution, Faculty of Law, Social, and Political Sciences, Universitas Terbuka, South Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia 

Approved with Reservations

VIEWS 0

Reviewer Report 19 May 2026

Nguyen Giang, Ho Chi Minh University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 

Approved with Reservations

VIEWS 0