2026 marks a pivotal point in the transformation of the growth model, with the requirement for high growth necessarily linked to improving the quality and competitiveness of the economy.
In the context where the policy model based on outsourcing, cheap labor, and broad-based FDI attraction has clearly revealed its limitations, the “Make in Vietnam” strategy must be established as a strategic choice to affirm the position of Vietnamese production in the global value chain.
In terms of direction, “Make in Vietnam” implies a shift from “Made in Vietnam” – primarily relying on assembly outsourcing and FDI – to a stage where Vietnam masters design, technology, standards, and the market.
However, it is precisely at this core point that “Make in Vietnam” reveals a structural problem, as it currently remains at the level of a directional slogan rather than an industrial standard with clear criteria and specific benchmarks.
Regarding objectives, “Make in Vietnam” pursues correct goals: increasing domestic value-added, improving labor productivity, promoting technological self-reliance, and forming a national brand.
However, these objectives currently exist only as policy declarations, while lacking key answers such as: what constitutes “mastery,” how much domestic value-added is sufficient, and based on what criteria to distinguish between enterprises that truly create value and those engaged in mere relabeling activities.
Without or being unable to define these connotations, “Make in Vietnam” can hardly play a role in guiding the investment and innovation behavior of Vietnamese enterprises.
A comparison with Switzerland’s “Swiss Made” model reveals a fundamental difference. “Swiss Made” is not a marketing slogan; it is a legally codified origin indication with strict quantitative criteria for the proportion of domestic value-added, defining core technological processes, assembly, final inspection, and accompanied by very clear legal liability.
Thanks to this, “Swiss Made” becomes a national commitment and credibility regarding quality, allowing products bearing this label to achieve high valuation and trust in the global market.
Meanwhile, Germany with “Made in Germany/German Engineering” or Japan with the philosophy of “Monozukuri – Japan Quality” do not build a national origin label like Switzerland but still establish global credibility through a strict system of technical standards, quality discipline in production, and high legal liability constraints for products.
Conversely, India’s “Make in India” strategy, launched decades ago, focuses on expanding production scale, attracting FDI, and import substitution through incentive mechanisms rather than building origin and quality standards to create a “premium” price.
This approach allows for success in scale and production capacity but simultaneously limits the ability to form a national brand based on quality and high value-added.
The problem with “Make in Vietnam” is that it lacks specific criteria and is unclear about which model it wants to follow.
Vietnam does not yet have sufficient industrial capacity to compete on scale like India, nor has it formed a strong enough industrial ecosystem and legal framework to build quality credibility like Germany or Japan, let alone the strictly codified origin standards of Switzerland.
In this context, for “Make in Vietnam” to truly be effective, it needs to be redesigned based on three core pillars.
First is the connotation of value-added, clearly defining the proportion of value created domestically, differentiated by industry and technological level, rather than relying solely on assembly location criteria.
Second is mastery of core stages, including design, foundational technology, control software, and intellectual property rights.
Third is quality and standards, requiring products to meet technical, environmental, and safety standards compatible with target markets, not limited to domestic market norms.
On that basis, “Make in Vietnam” needs to be linked to a transparent and credible certification mechanism instead of allowing enterprises to self-label.
More importantly, certification must be accompanied by conditional economic incentives, such as priority in public procurement, R&D support, preferential credit, or trade promotion…
If restructured towards standardization, “Make in Vietnam” could become an important industrial policy tool, helping to coordinate resources, promote enterprise capacity upgrading, and gradually position Vietnam in the global value chain.
Data released this afternoon shows GDP growth for