Section I: What Vietnam Can Learn from National Industrial Policy

Lessons from the U.S. Debate, and the Experiences of Japan, South Korea, China, and Norway 

 Recently, a CNBC report drew attention to a striking shift in U.S. economic policy: the federal government has begun taking direct equity stakes in private companies across strategic sectors such as semiconductors, critical minerals, energy, and heavy industry. Supporters argue this approach strengthens national security and accelerates industrial development. Critics warn it distorts markets, politicizes business decisions, and creates legal and governance risks.¹ 

 Behind this debate lies a deeper question, one that matters far beyond the United States: when does state involvement in industry create national strength, and when does it create long-term fragility? For Vietnam, a fast-growing economy navigating globalization, geopolitics, and technological change, the answer carries important lessons. 

Vietnam at a crossroads: learning from Japan, South Korea, China, and Norway how disciplined industrial policy can build long-term national strength.

Japan and South Korea offer some of the clearest examples of successful industrial policy. In the decades after World War II, both countries used coordinated state guidance to nurture key industries. Governments did not simply pick winners at random. They set long-term priorities, protected infant industries, encouraged exports, and gradually exposed firms to global competition. Crucially, the state acted as a patient partner, not a daily manager. Over time, companies like Toyota, Samsung, and Hyundai became globally competitive without permanent government control.

 China’s approach is different in style but similar in intent. Programs such as “Made in China 2025” channel capital, subsidies, and policy support into strategic sectors like advanced manufacturing, batteries, and artificial intelligence. The system tolerates inefficiency in the early stages in exchange for scale, learning, and eventual dominance. While controversial internationally, this model has undeniably accelerated China’s industrial capabilities and reduced dependence on foreign technology. 

 Norway provides a quieter, but perhaps more relevant, example for Vietnam. By keeping firm national control over oil resources through Equinor and channeling revenues into a sovereign wealth fund, Norway ensured that natural wealth benefited the entire society. The key was governance. Clear rules, transparency, professional management, and political consensus prevented short-term politics from undermining long-term value. The state owned strategically, but it did not govern emotionally. 

 The CNBC article highlights what happens when these principles are weak. In the U.S. case, experts warn that open-ended government ownership, unclear legal authority, and political polarization risk turning industrial policy into favoritism rather than strategy.¹ When companies fear political retaliation or policy reversal, silence replaces innovation. Capital flows toward political access instead of productivity.

 For Vietnam, the lesson is not to avoid industrial policy. It is to practice it wisely. 

 Vietnam already uses elements of state guidance, particularly in infrastructure, energy, and manufacturing. The next phase of development will require moving up the value chain, from assembly to design, technology, and brand ownership. This cannot be achieved by markets alone. Strategic sectors such as semiconductors, renewable energy, logistics, and advanced agriculture require long-term capital, coordination, and patience. 

 But Vietnam should also learn what to avoid. State participation must be rules-based, time-bound, and transparent. The government should act as a catalyst, not a permanent shareholder without exit. Support should reward performance, exports, and innovation, not connections. Most importantly, industrial policy should be anchored in national consensus, not short-term political cycles. 

 In simple terms, successful countries treat industrial policy like irrigation, not like flooding. Water is guided through channels so crops can grow. Without channels, the same water destroys the field. 

 Vietnam stands at a moment where choices made today will shape the next generation. By studying both the promises and the pitfalls highlighted in the U.S. debate, and by learning from the disciplined experiences of Japan, South Korea, China, and Norway, Vietnam can design a path that balances ambition with restraint. 

Final thought

 In Eastern philosophy, strength comes from balance. Action without wisdom becomes force. Wisdom without action becomes stagnation. For a nation, as for an individual, the art lies in knowing when to guide, when to step back, and when to let time do its quiet work. If Vietnam can hold this balance, industrial policy will not be a gamble, but a steady river carrying the country toward lasting prosperity. 

 --- 

Footnotes 

1. CNBC, *“Trump administration equity stakes pose risks to U.S. companies and markets”*, February 7, 2026.

Authorship

This article is written by Dave Huynh, as part of an ongoing series on economic development and Vietnam’s future growth path. It is developed in collaboration with Amanda, an AI research and writing partner, who supports analysis, structure, and language refinement. All interpretations and conclusions remain the author’s own.

Series Note