Page 16 - ISC PROCEEDINGS 21.4

design. Roumboutsos and Saussier (2014) argue that PPP contracts must be flexible
enough to accommodate technological change during implementation, especially in
sectors characterized by rapid innovation. A third strand addresses commercialization and
institutional brokerage. O’Neill and Williams (2019) highlight the importance of
intermediary organizations that connect research institutions and firms, making
innovation partnerships easier to manage and more commercially relevant. At the policy
level, OECD (2019) stresses principles such as transparency, competition, accountability,
and performance measurement in innovation-related PPP governance.
In Vietnam, by contrast, the literature remains limited. Most PPP research has
focused on traditional infrastructure sectors, while studies specifically addressing
science, technology, innovation, and digital transformation are still relatively scarce.
Recent policy discussions have begun to recognize the need to expand PPP into high-
tech sectors. Phan The Công, at el (2023), for example, identified legal barriers in
implementing the 2020 PPP Law and argued for a broader legal basis for PPP in
information technology and digital transformation (Nguyen Mai Duong, 2025) similarly
argues that the amended Law on Science, Technology and Innovation creates more
favorable conditions for public-private cooperation by placing enterprises at the center
of the innovation ecosystem and by supporting innovation through tax incentives, credit
support, and venture capital-related measures.
Some emerging Vietnamese discussions also point to concrete domestic
experiences. Uyen To (2025) describes PPP as a potential new growth driver for
innovation and digital transformation, using Da Nang’s smart city model as an example. In
that case, firms provide digital infrastructure, platforms, and intelligent operations
systems, while government agencies define standards and procure services. At the same
time, the study highlights continuing legal and institutional problems, such as unclear
cost-recovery mechanisms, limited legal clarity for data-related models, and the
mismatch between conventional PPP procedures and the rapid life cycle of digital
technologies.
Taken together, the literature reveals a clear research gap. International studies
offer useful theoretical and practical insights into how PPP can support innovation, but
recent changes in Vietnam’s own legal framework have not yet been fully assessed in
the academic literature. There remains a need for an integrated analysis that links
theory, recent Vietnamese policy reform, domestic implementation conditions, and
international experience. This article responds to that gap by examining the current
state of PPP in high-tech innovation in Vietnam and by drawing policy implications
based on comparative analysis.
3. Research methodology
This study adopts a qualitative design based on document analysis and comparative
policy review. This approach is appropriate because Vietnam’s PPP framework for high-
tech innovation is still new, while empirical evidence on implementation remains limited.
The analysis therefore focuses on identifying the current policy framework, its
institutional direction, and related policy implications.
The study uses four groups of sources: (1) Vietnamese legal and policy documents
on PPP, science and technology, innovation, digital transformation, and public investment,
especially the 2025 Law on Science, Technology and Innovation, Decree No.
180/2025/ND-CP, the 2020 PPP Law, and Resolution No. 57-NQ/TW (2024); (2) official
reports and implementation-related materials from state agencies, particularly the

15