A First Phase Evaluation Report

(1)

Haiphong-Greater Seattle

Development Partnership:

A First Phase Evaluation Report

(World Bank Internal Working Paper)

Vu Minh Khuong

Harvard University

(2)

The major cities in Vietnam, namely Hanoi, Hochiminh City, and Haiphong have a long tradition of participating in Sister City relationship. However, before the country embarks on theeconomicreform,known as“DoiMoi”,initiated in 1986,Sister City relationships were mainly arranged by the central government and served just as friendship symbol between Vietnam and the countries in the socialist block.

The “DoiMoi” hasnot only dramatically improved the economic performance of Vietnam and all its cities, but also has brought about new energy and interest by the cities in expanding and enhancing their international relationships. Cities of all sizes and their local governments have expressed their increasing interest in seeking opportunities to learn from the development success and management experience of cities in developed countries. Over the last 15 years of economic reform, several Vietnamese cities have expanded their Sister City program to cities in developed countries, including the U.S. As of 2002, between Vietnam and the US, there are five Sister City programs: Haiphong-Seattle, Hochiminh City-San Francisco, Hue-New Haven, Hue-Honolulu, and Vungtau-Long Beach. In addition, a development partnership between Hue and Honolulu (Hawaii) was established in 2002 as part of the International Resource Cities Program (RCP)1.

In the US, the Sister City Program began as a national concept in 1956, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower called for massive exchanges between Americans and people of other countries. The main purpose of the Sister City Program, as originally designed, is to create international understanding and goodwill. A Sister City Agreement is formalized when two cities from different nations join together to develop a partnership

1_{The Resource Cities Program was introduced by ICMA (the International City/County Management}

Association) and USAID in 1997. The program allows city officials in developing countries to draw on the resources of their U.S. counterparts to find solutions that achieve their full economic potential while protecting and improving their environmental conditions.

(4)

program that serves the mutual interests of both sides. Based on the objectives and agenda set out by the program, the two cities exchange people, ideas, culture, education, technology, and management experience.

The Sister City Program has been widely adopted by US cities. About 700 US cities/communities are currently maintaining Sister City relationships with as many as 1,500 international cities/communities in 121 countries around the world2. Evolving overtime, Sister City partners today engage in a wide range of mutually beneficial, innovative and meaningful activities and projects, including:

 Culture, sport, and education exchange  Business and economic development  Health care and public safety

 Environment protection  Humanitarian relief

I.2.The Two Cities

Haiphong is the major gateway to the sea for the provinces of northern Vietnam. Haiphong is also an industrial center and a major pole in the Northern Strategic Growth Triangle set by the national development strategy, which includes Hanoi, Haiphong, and Quangninh.

Haiphong has a tradition of being dynamic and pioneering in economic development. The city was a key contributor to the initiatives leading to the economic reform in Vietnam in the 1980s. Haiphong has enjoyed rapid economic growth since 1990 with GDP growth rates averaging nearly 9.5% annually. The Haiphong port handles a rapidly increasing throughput, which exceeded 8.5 million MT in 2001, including 228,000 TEUs of containerized cargo.

The people of Haiphong have positive views toward international relationships and globalization. As of 2003, Haiphong has attracted over 76 FDI projects with registered capital inflows of over US$1 billion.

2

(5)

Haiphong currently has sister relationship with seven international cities, of which Marseille (France), Incheon (Korea) and Seattle (USA) were established in the years of

“Doimoi”.

Box 1.1. Haiphong: Selected Facts and Indicators (see Appendix 1a&1b)

Key indicators (2000)

Population:1.7 million (including about 1.11 million living in rural areas) GDP per Capita:US$500 (or PPP$2120)

Growth:the average annual growth rate of GDP from 1990-2000 was 9.5% Main industries:

 Shipbuilding, Industrial Machinery, Steel, Electric cable

 Cement, Chemicals, Paint

 Shoes and leather, Textile, Paper

 Port Services, Tourism

Port throughput(2001):

 Tonnage: 8.5 million MT (of which 5.6 million MT are international)

 Container: 228,000 TEUs

Sister City Partners (7 cities): Bratislava (Slovakia), Incheon (Korea), Marseille (France), Seattle (USA), Tianjin (China), Vientiane (Laos), Vladivostok (Russia)

Sources: City of Haiphong and Vietnam Port Authority websites (http://www.haiphong.gov.vn and http://www.vpa.org.vn, July 25, 2003)

(6)

Seattle is the heart of the greater Seattle area, which is a thriving center of high-tech industries. The greater Seattle area is home to the headquarters of world-leading companies such as Boeing, Microsoft, Nordstrom, and Starbucks. Seattle has a flourishing international trade sector, which accounts for one third of the city employment. Seattle is a highly international city. The greater Seattle area receives about 27 million tourists a year and has large trade volume with international partners totaling US$20 billion of imports and US$25 billion of exports in 2001.

The Port of Seattle is one of the largest, most efficient container and cargo centers on the west coast of the U.S. Closer to Asia than any other major U.S. port, Seattle is a premier gateway for products moving to and from North America. In 2000, the port of Seattle handled a throughput of over 16 million MT, including 1.5 million TEUs of containerized cargo.

With over 13% of its population being Asian, Seattle has an affinity for Asian culture and it has embraced the opportunities for deepening its relationship with the cities in East Asia. As a city with the second largest Sister City program in the U.S., Seattle has 21 partner cities, eight of which are of East and Southeast Asian Countries.

Box 1.2. Seattle: Selected Facts and Indicators (see more details in Appendix 1.2)

Population:

 Seattle: 563,000, of which 74,000 (13.1%) are Asian and 12,000 (2.1%) are Vietnamese

 King County: 1,740,000, of which 188,000 (10.8%) are Asian and 28,000 (1.6%) are Vietnamese

GDP per capita:$44,719 (King County, 1999)

Growth:the average annual growth rate of GDP during 1995-2000 was 4% (the US) Main Industries:

 Aircraft, Computer Equipment and Software, Industrial Machinery, Electronic/Electrical, Equipment, Instruments, Lumber and Wood Products

 Food and Kindred Products, Textiles, Apparel and Leather, Paper.

 Port Services, Finance and Insurance, Tourism.

Port:

+Throughput (2000)

 Tonnage: 16 million

(7)

Sister City Partners (21 cities):

Beer Sheva, Central, Israel (1977), Bergen, Akershus, Norway (1967),Cebu, Philippines (1991), Chongqing, China (1983),Christchurch, New Zealand (1981), Galway, Carlow, Ireland (1986), Gdynia, Poland (1993),Haiphong, Vietnam (1996), Kaohsiung, Taiwan, China (1991), Kobe, Japan (1957),Limbe, Cameroon (1984), Mazatlan, Mexico (1979), Mombasa, Kenya (1981), Nantes, France (1980), Pecs, Hungary (1991), Perugia, Italy (1991), Reykjavik, Iceland (1986), Sihanoukville, Cambodia (2001), Surabaya, Indonesia (1992), Taejon, South Korea (1989), Tashkent, Uzbekistan (1973).

*The cities in bold italics are of East and Southeast Asian Countries

Sources: City of Seattle and Port of Seattle websites (http://www.seattle.govand http://www.portseattle.org, July 25, 2003)

I.3.The Initiation of the Haiphong-Seattle Development Partnership

The Haiphong-Seattle relationship had its birth in 1993 when Seattle sent the first trade mission to Haiphong. In 1996, Haiphong and Seattle signed the agreement to become Sister Cities, and through this program several exchanges and activities have occurred, primarily in the areas of cultural events and humanitarian assistance.

Also in 1996, Mr. Tran Huy Nang took office as the mayor (Chairman of People Committee) of Haiphong. Mr. Nang and his team were strongly interested and proactive in expanding Haiphong’sinternational partnerships to mobilize resources for development. With his appreciation for the contribution of the World Bank to the success of economic reforms in Vietnam, Mr. Nang met with Mr. Andrew Steer, World Bank Country Director of Vietnam to discuss how the World Bank could assist Haiphong in its development. Mr. Steer and the World Bank were interested in

Haiphong’sproposaland promised to provide the city with its support. In 1997 and 1998, the World Bank sent several missions to Haiphong, working with the local government to formulate a City Development Strategy (CDS) for the city. Led by Mr. Tim Campbell, the working teams produced an impressive report, analyzing the strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities for Haiphong and proposing a strategy for its development toward 2020 (see appendix 3). The report highlighted the main impediments to the future development of Haiphong, including its inward-looking tendencies, protection-reliant heavy industries, and supply-driven, rather than demand-driven, governmental services. The report recommended that the city pursue a growth strategy focused on tradable services such as tourism, banking, finance, port-related

(8)

services to support growing exports, and increase exposure to international markets and business practices.

The Sister City relationship between Haiphong and Seattle provides an interesting opportunity for the World Bank to advance its learning in how a developed city, in partnership with the Bank and other donors, might help less-developed cities expand their capabilities. In October 1999, the World Bank president, James Wolfensohn, challenged the City of Seattle to enlist the resources of the greater Seattle community to support cities in development. The City of Seattle, greater Seattle community, and Haiphong (chosen in early 2000) have responded to meet this challenge and have become the key participants in a pilot project promoting development through their Sister City partnership. The financial support for the project come from the World Bank President’sContingency Budget ($250,000), USAID’sAsia Environmental Partnership ($260,000), and the City and community of Seattle ($70,000 valued in time and work).

II. Sister City Partnership for Development: From Potential to Real World

II.1. from Potential…

Development economists have provided extensive discussions on the determinants of the success of a locality3. In a summary, the ability of a city to thrive is determined by a set of four C-determinants:

1) Commitment, which characterizes the vision, devotion, and development strategy of

thecity’sleadership.

2)Concept, which means the mindset or attitudes and beliefs of local people, especially business and government leaders, concerning business and economic development. 3)Competence, which signifies the execution skills and latest knowledge on technology and management of local government and business sector.

3_{For a fascinat}_i_ng_di_s_cus_s_i_on_on_t_hi_s_i_s_s_ue_,_s_ee_“_Wor_l_d_Cl_a_s_s_:_Loc_a_l_l_y_Thr_i_vi_ng_i_n_t_he_Gl_obal_Ec_onomy”

(9)

4) Connectivity, which represents physical infrastructure, global partnership, and communication capabilities.

For a city in development, partnering with a world class city has great potential impact on its success because it enhances these four determinants. More specifically:

 Intensive exchanges of ideas and development agenda between the two cites as well as frequent study tours and internships of government officials, experts, people from the developing city to the developed city will foster the determinants“Commitment”,“Concept”,and “Competence”.

 Trade missions and business-to-business relationships, especially when each of the two cities becomes a hub for economic and business exchanges between the two nations, will substantially fortify the “Connectivity” determinant of the developing city.

 Cooperation programs on well-selected projects will allow the developing city capitalize on excellent expertise and hands-on experience from its developed city counterpart on the areas critical to its growth and development.

In the survey results in section III.1, we see that all the key participants of the Haiphong-Seattlepartnership agreethat“for its development endeavor, a developing city can greatly benefit from its Sister City partnerships with developed cities”and most of them strongly agree with this statement.

II.2…to Real World

There is a strong correlation between the success of a nation in Asia and the aggressiveness of its cities in establishing and fostering Sister City partnerships with developed cities in American cities (Table 2.1).

(10)

Number of Sister City partnerships with US cities**

Country Average GDP

Growth* (Period)

Population in 2000*

(million) Total Per 10 million people Japan 8.6% (1953-1973) 127 227 17.9 Taiwan 8.5% (1952-1998) 22 48 21.8 Korea 8.2% (1965-1997) 47 33 7.0 China 8.1% (1979-2000) 1,262 160 1.3 India 4.3% (1965-1997) 6.0% (1990-2000) --1,016 0 13 0 0.1 Bangladesh 3.9% (1965-1997) 131 0 0.0 Sri Lanka 4.6% (1965-1997) 19 0 0.0

Sources:Author’scalculation based on:

*WB Development Indicators 2001 (CD ROM) and Pent World Table (version 5.6) ** Sister City International (SCI) website (www.sister-cities.org, July 23, 2003)

Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China have made spectacular achievements in economic growth development in the past four decades and their cities have been among the most aggressive in cultivating Sister City programs with American cities since the early days of their economic development (Japan in the 1950s and 1960s, Taiwan and Korea in the 1960s and 1970s, and China in the 1980s and 1990s). On the contrary, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka’s poor economic performance was coincidental with the lack of Sister City programs in their cities. Indian cities did not have Sister City programs with American cities before the country initiated its economic liberalization in 1991. Since then, India has enjoyed a significantly higher economic growth.

Recently one also observes the desire of cities from transition economies such as Czech, Poland, and Bulgaria, and from Africa, including Ghana, in partnering with US cities with a strong focus on the benefits for economic development.

There has been a wide range of partnership activities that can have impact on economic development in a less-developed city. Key examples include:

 Study trips:In 2002, Chonquin sent five professional and technical delegations of government officials to Seattle to enhance their knowledge and contacts in various fields: foreign trade, health care, law, and education. In particular, a delegation from Choquin Control Bureau visited Seattle in 2000 to meet with

(11)

counterpart agencies to learn how American city agencies address the challenges of potential corruption and abuse of power.

 Training:

o Sacramento Regional and Continuing Education has a two-year training and education agreement with Jinan (China). The first delegation from Jinan visited for one month to learn about a variety of technologies and Internet applications.

o When the Mayor of Sekondi-Takoradi (Ghana) visited Boston in October 2001 to sign the Boston- Sekondi-Takoradi Sister City Agreement, he was asked what his city needed most. He replied that

hewanted to build hisstaff’sknowledge,experience,and training.This response has motivated the Department of Economics at Suffolk University in Boston, with the help of an initial grant of $125,000, to conduct training sessions for the faculty members from the University of Cape Coast in Sekondi-Takoradi. The training sessions took place in

the summer of 2003 (according to

www.suffolk.edu/opa/news/ghana.html, July 15, 2003).

 Trade missions: By cultivating the sister partnership between Jinan (China) and Sacramento, the World Trade Center in Sacramento has increased the number of trade missions from China to the Central Valley from less than 10 a year prior to 1999, to 50 a year since 2002.

 Assistance in English training and editing:the city of Kobe frequently invites volunteers from Seattle to work in the city government office to assist the city in editing English version of its documents.

 Establishment of Sister City associations: The Seattle-Choquin Sister City Association wasestablished asa nonprofitcitizens’organization to promote partnership activities. Funding comes through membership dues, donations, grants, program fees, and a small annual contribution from the City of Seattle.  Sister school relationships: Seattle Chief Sealth High School was awarded a

(12)

the Nankai School of the city of Choquin with a focus on environmental education and stewardship projects.

 Student Exchangeand “Young AmbassadorProgram”:each year, a group of

studentsfrom KobevisitSeattle,and viceversa.Participantssample“reallife”

in another country as they attend classes at local school and live with local families; they also have opportunities to meet business leaders and government officials.

 Assistance from ICMA Resource Cities Program (RCP):

o Marketing: the RCP city worked with the city of Haskovo (Bulgaria) to develop marketing materials, including a marketing brochure promoting an industrial zone, a tourist map for the city, and a catalogue

ofHaskovo’sfirms.

o Business Development: the RCP city provided technical assistance in micro-credit and business incubator development and management to city of Almaty, Kazakhstan.

II.3.The Depth of Sister City Development Partnership and Key Success Factors

There are hundreds of Sister City relationships currently among cities around the world and they can be divided into three main groups by the level of their vibrancy: Low, High, and Dynamic.

 Low: a Sister City partnership is considered to be at the low level of vibrancy if it is in a stagnant state. The partnership is not supported by on-going meaningful projects and significant community involvement. The enthusiasm and expectation of the two cities are low.

 High:a Sister City partnership is considered to be at the high level of vibrancy if it is robust, self-reinforced with a wealth of on-going meaningful projects and innovative activities. At this level, the partnership is usually fostered by proactive involvement of all key players in each city: city hall, business sector, universities, NGOs, and volunteers.

(13)

 Dynamic: this level ranges between the Low and High levels. At this level, the enthusiasm of the two cities is rather high and there have been a few successful projects. The partnership can evolve overtime toward the High level if the two cities consistently foster the factors underlying the success of a Sister City partnership, including commitment, creativity, broad-based cooperation of all key players, and communications links. However, the partnership can also slip to the Low level if it is not well cultivated by the two cities (see appendix 4 for a theoretical discussion).

Table 2.2 below provides a detailed description of these three categories of Sister City partnerships.

(14)

Table 2.2.Sister City partnership categorized by the level of vibrancy.

Level Benchmarks Examples

Low

(basic)

 Sister City Agreement

 Occasional friendship activities

 Haiphong-Marseille Dynamic (unstable, evolving over time toward either High or Low level)

 Agenda for partnership on development: significant interest in opportunities for development.

 Significant collaboration at working levels  Regular events: student exchanges, trade

missions

 Some collaboration at the micro level such as school-to-school, business-to-business)  Sister City Association is established to

gather support for and to promote the partnership between the two cities with membership, website, and newsletter.

 Seattle-Haiphong  Seattle-Tashkent (Uzbekistan)  Boston-Sekondi-Takoradi (Ghana)  Seattle-Choquing High (stable, self-reinforced)

 Strategic partnership: the partnership is vibrant. It is consistently nurtured and effectively exploited to promote growth and development

 Intensive collaboration at working levels  Two cities play an important role in

fostering the business and economic partnership as well as cultural exchanges between the two countries.

 Sacramento-Jinan  Seattle-Kobe

(15)

III. Evaluating the First Phase of Haiphong-Seattle Development Partnership

The Haiphong-Seattle partnership in the first phase (2000-2003) began by exploring opportunities to promote the development of Haiphong through the partnership between the two cities. The first phase identified four priority cooperation programs:

 Business/Tourism promotionwith two main tasks

o Attract hotel investment;

o Advertise the expansion of tourism and trade development in Haiphong  IT/Website developmentwith two main tasks:

o Establish and begin to implement a strategic information technology plan;

o Build and develop content for Haiphong’swebsite  Health carewith two main tasks:

o Conduct an assessment of the health care needs and health care system in Haiphong;

o Provide training opportunities for Haiphong public health officials at the University of Washington

 Urban Planningwith two main tasks:

o Conduct a planning case study (including integrated land use, the environment, socio-economic and tourism sector planning, and infrastructure) in a selected area to give potential developers or investors guidance on specified land uses, infrastructure requirements, and building types;

o Prepare a prospectus for potential investment.

The specific objectives set out for the partnership in Phase One are to:  Deepen mutual understanding.

(16)

 Build technical and civic associations and relationships.

 Build working business relationships for the four cooperation programs.

 Strengthen capacity and technical skills in Haiphong in the areas of cooperation. To ensure an in-depth and comprehensive evaluation, we have conducted a series of individual interviews and a small survey of the key participants in the Haiphong-Seattle partnership. The results of the survey will be briefly presented below before we discuss in detail accomplishments and shortcomings of the partnership in the first phase and lessons learned.

III.1.Survey Results

The questionnaire consists of 9 questions, which are designed on a 1-5 scale4and aimed to capture the perception of the participants about the factors underlying the performance of the Haiphong-Seattle partnership (appendix 5). The survey was sent to the people in Haiphong and Seattle who have played some significant role in promoting the partnership between the two cities during its first phase. All people who received the questionnaire were very supportive and they provided prompt and thoughtful responses. On the part of Haiphong, the Office of People Committee and the Department Foreign Affairs jointly provided us with a summary of the responses from Haiphong. For Seattle, we received separate responses from representatives of the City of Seattle, Greater Seattle Trade Alliance, University of Washington, Port of Seattle, Greater Seattle-Vietnam Association, and Mr. Henry Sharpe.

The survey results are summarized by city and presented in six subsections: concept and priority, perception about success of the first phase, major constraints challenging the partnership, role of key participants, priorities for cooperation programs and action

itemsin thesecond phase,and expectation ofthesecond phase’ssuccess.

4

Questions 5, 6 ,7 about the priorities of cooperation programs and the constraints to enhancing the partnership were originally designed on a 1-3 scale were converted to the 1-5 scale,where“1”meansthe

lowestlevelofagreement,orsignificanceorimportance(“very low”or“very insignificantly”,“5”means thehighestlevel(“very high”or“very strongly”,and “3”meanstheaveragelevel(“neitherhigh norlow” or“justthesame”).

(17)

1. Concept and Priority (Chart 1):

The two cities strongly agree that a developing city can benefit from partnering with a successful developed city. This confirms our belief in this concept discussed in section II.1. As a city in development, Haiphong has an even stronger belief than Seattle in this concept.

Regarding the priority for the Haiphong-Seattle partnership in each city’sinternational agenda, Haiphong places it at the highest level of priority while Seattle gives it a score of 3.5, which is somewhat above the average level. It is interesting to note that the answers from representatives of Seattle have a large variation, ranging from low to very high. One respondent from Seattle commented that the Seattle city government’s participation is highly dependent on the enthusiasm and energy of Haiphong in fostering the partnership. Seattle has a large Sister City program with 21 Sister City partners, including some time-tested and highly proactive cities from Asia such as Kobe (Japan) and Choqin (China). Haiphong, therefore, must match these two prominent cities in terms of commitment and aggressiveness to rank highin Seattle’sinternationalagenda.

Chart 1. Concept and Priority

5.0

5.0 4.3

3.5

1 2 3 4 5

City partnership is an effective way to pro mo te develo pment

P rio rity fo r the HP -Seattle partnership in yo ur city's internatio nal agenda

(18)

2. Perception about the success of the partnership in the first phase (Chart 2)

Among the four main cooperation programs carried out in the first phase, the success of the IT/Website development program is highly praised by the two cities. Haiphong gives it the highest score of 5.0 while Seattle gives it 4.2. The programs of Tourism/Trade Promotion and Urban Planning appear less successful with scores of 4.0 and 3.0 by Haiphong and 3.0 and 3.7 by Seattle, respectively. The success of the Public Health program is perceived least successful by both cities. Seattle gives it a score of 2.5, which is lower than the critical level of 3.0.

The overall levels of satisfaction of the two cities on the first phase of partnership are positive but not very high. This level of satisfaction is fairly high (score=4.0) on Haiphong part but only moderate for Seattle (3.2). The higher level of satisfaction of

Haiphong ispartly dueto thecity’svery positive perception about the intangible results of the first phase, which will be discussed later on the evaluation section.

Chart 2. Perception about the Success of Four Main Cooperation Programs 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.2 3.7 2.5 3.2 1 2 3 4 5 Business/tourism promotion

IT and Website development

Urban planning

Public health

Overall Satisfaction on the success of the first phase

(19)

3. Major constrains in enhancing the partnership (Chart 3)

Both cities identify financial resources as the most important factor for further enhancing the partnership (5.0 for Haiphong and 4.6 for Seattle). This suggests that the two cities will have to be very proactive in mobilizing resources from business communities and potential donors to support their cooperation programs and activities. Because the first phase of partnership relied mainly on the financial support from the WB and USAEP, the partnership may need additional financial support to become financially independent, at which point the two cities should be able to mobilize financial resources for their cooperation programs.

The second biggest constraint perceived by Haiphong is the limited English skills of Haiphong partners (4.0) and by Seattle is the ineffectiveness of communication links (4.2). A common comment from Seattle group on this problem is that Haiphong partners were usually slow in responding to emails and faxes. The problem may make the Seattle partners confused or cause some loss of cooperation opportunities.

Although the lack of direction for cooperation is not a significant constraint, it is still a minor concern by both sides (3.0 for Haiphong and 3.5 for Seattle). This result suggests that the two cities should formulate a clear strategy for their partnership with ambitious goals and an effective implementation plan. While the four cooperation programs make a good start for the two cities to work together they cannot effectively shape the vision and strategy for the cooperation between the two cities.

It is interesting to note thatboth Haiphong and Seattledon’tseethe difference in culture and business practice as a significant obstacle (2.0 for Haiphong and 3.0 for Seattle). In international relationships, differences in culture and business practice are inevitable. Therefore, when people say that this problem is not significant, it means they either have successly dealt with the challenge, or have a strong commitment to overcome it. For Haiphong, the results also shows that Haiphong has a strong, positive attitude toward global integration.

(20)

4. Role of key participants (Chart 4)

Both cities see that city governments, business sectors, universities, the World Bank, and community (volunteers and NGOs) are very important factors in further enhancing the partnership. Seattle, as a city with rich experience in nurturing and cultivating Sister City partnerships, identifies city hall as having the most important role (score=4.7), business sectors-second (4.5), universities and the World Bank-the third (4.3), and the community fourth (3.7).

Chart 3. Major Constraints in Further Enhancing the Partnership

2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.2 4.2 3.5 4.6 1 2 3 4 5 · Difference in culture and business practice · English skills of the

Vietnamese partners · Slow response from

counterpart city partners · Lack of directions for

cooperation · Financial resources

(21)

Chart 4. Role of Key Participants in Further Promoting the Partnership 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.3 3.7 4.3 2.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 · City governments · Business sector · Universities

· Volunteers and NGOs

· World Banks

· Other donors

Haiphong Seattle

In the first phase, on the Haiphong side, the involvement from business sectors, universities, and community were negligible. If the potentially excellent partners such as Haiphong port, Maritime University, Tran Phu and Thai Phien High Schools, COHASHIP (the association of non-state businesses in Haiphong) and the business sectors had participated in the first phase, the Haiphong-Seattle partnership could have been a lot more vibrant.

5.Priorities forthe Second Phase’s Cooperation Programs(Chart 5)

All six potential programs for cooperation in the second phase are given high priority by the two cities (score=4.0 or higher). It is interesting to note that although the partnership is development-oriented, the friendship enhancing activities and events remain top priorities for both sides (5.0 for Haiphong and 4.8 for Seattle). This suggests that the Sister City relationship needs to be nurtured and cultivated to become a foundation for the development partnership to flourish. The second and third priority programs are IT/Website Development and Business/Tourism Promotion.

(22)

Chart 5. Priority for the Second Phase's Cooperation Programs 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.7 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.8 1 2 3 4 5 Business/tourism promotion

IT and Website development

Public health

Sustainable development of tourism in Catba

Redevelopment the w aterf ront

Friendship enhancing activities/events

6.Priorities forthe Second Phase’s Selected Action Items (Chart 6)

The three actions with the highest priority in both Seattle and Haiphong are trade missions from Haiphong to Seattle, trade missions from Seattle to Haiphong, and study tours of Haiphong government officials to Seattle focused on governance issues. The vibrancy of outstanding Sister City partnerships such as Chongqin-Seattle and Jinan-Sacramento have very much followed this pattern (see section II.2).

(23)

Chart 6. Priority for Possible Action Items 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 3.3 3.8 4.7 4.7 4.3 1 2 3 4 5

Establishing HP-Seattle friendship association

Student exchange

Internship for HP government officials in Seattle

Trade mission from HP to Seattle

Trade mission from Seattle to HP

Study tour of HP government officials to Seattle

7.Expectation ofthe Second Phase’s Success (Chart7)

There is a sharp distinction in the expectations by the two cities for the success of the second phase relative to that of the first phase. Seattle expects that the success of the second phase will be just slightly higher than that of the first phase (score=3.3 vs. 3.0) while Haiphong expects much more success in the second phase (score=5.0).

Chart 7. Expectation of the Second Phase's Success

5.0

3.3

1 2 3 4 5

Haiphong

(24)

The cautious optimism of Seattle could be explained by two main reasons:

1. The vibrancy of the partnership in the first phase was not as high as the city expected; that is why their overall satisfaction about the first phase is only moderate (score=3.2, chart 2).

2. There will not be significant financial support from the World Bank and USAEP as the first phase enjoyed.

Haiphong, on the other hand, having found through the first phase that the partnership is a great treasure they can exploit for their development efforts, is highly optimistic about the success of the second phase. A common view of the participants from Haiphong is that they now understand much better the potential benefits the city can gain from the development partnership with Seattle.

III.2.Accomplishments and Shortcomings

The accomplishments and shortcomings of the first phase of the Haiphong-Seattle partnership can be evaluated on three dimensions. The first dimension concerns the input side, which measures how much effort and resources the two cities have invested into the partnership. The second dimension relates to the output side, including both tangible and intangible results such as the quality and impact of the reports, products, services, and activities which result from the partnership. The third dimension looks at the process, and focuses on the effectiveness of communication links, creativity of cooperation projects, and the depth of involvement from the key participants.

1) Dimension 1: Input Side (Investments)

Accomplishments

With the support from the WB and USAEP, the two cities have invested a significant amount of resources and effort in getting the Haiphong-Seattle development partnership started (Table 3.1). In addition, all the meetings and presentations were carefully prepared and scheduled with a spirit of sincere sharing of knowledge and willingness to learn.

(25)

Table 3.1.Investments of the Two Cities into the Partnership

Dates Visits/Activities Results

March 2000

Visit of Seattle delegation led by Ms. Denna Cline to Haiphong with the participation of World Bank experts

Initial discussions on the first phase of the Haiphong-Seattle Partnership.

Aug.-Nov. 2000

Mr. Henry Sharpe spent three months in Haiphong providing expertise in urban planning.

+ Haiphong formed a task force to work with Seattle and WB experts. + Report by Mr. Sharpe provides initial suggestions for a framework of the Haiphong Seattle partnership.

May 2001 Haiphong delegation in Seattle attends the Asia Pacific Mayors Summit in Seattle and has meetings with representatives from the City of Seattle and the University of Washington.

Initial ideas for the areas of cooperation: housing for low income people; trade and tourist promotion; IT; port service; and environmental management.

July 2001 Visit of Seattle delegation to Haiphong to discuss and elaborate the programs of cooperation

Memorandum of Cooperation defining three main areas for cooperation: trade and tourist promotion; website development; and public health.

Nov.-Dec. 2001

Visit of Haiphong delegation to Seattle to extend the cooperation programs and set out an action plan

The program of urban planning strategy was added to the partnership agenda and an action plan was formulated.

June 2002 Seattle expert team in Haiphong to work with Haiphong counterparts (City Office, Departments: Planning and Investment, Tourism, Trade, Industry, and Science-Technology-Environment)

+ Workshops on trade and tourist promotion;

+ Three reports on technical assistance for website development, trade, and tourist promotion.

(26)

July 2002 Visit by a University of Washington delegation led by president McCormick to Haiphong.

+ Meetings with Haiphong Medical University and Viet-Tiep Hospital to elaborate the cooperation tasks on the public health program.

+ Encouraging Haiphong to nominate

participants for the UW’s Population

Leadership training program. 2002 Drs. Mock from UW was in

Haiphong for his work on trauma and accident response and improvement of ambulance systems.

Learning how to help Haiphong on the issues.

2002 Dr. Gloyd from UW was in Haiphong working on programs concerning injury prevention, STD and AIDs, and reproductive health.

Learning how to help Haiphong on the issues.

March 2003

Visit of USAEP and ICMA representatives to Haiphong to review the progress of the cooperation programs

The urban planning strategy program is replaced by the program of sustainable tourist development for Catba Island. June 2003 Visit of Haiphong delegation to

Seattle to close the first phase of the partnership, review its accomplishments, and formulate a plan for the second phase.

The plan for cooperation in the second phase includes five programs:

+ Trade/tourism promotion (cont’);

+ IT/Websitedevelopment(cont’);

+ Publichealth (cont’);

+ Sustainable tourist development for Catba; and

+ Redevelopment of the waterfront of old Haiphong port

Shortcomings

While the investments of the two cities in the first phase of the partnership were quite significant, they suffered two considerable shortcomings:

(27)

 Lack of active involvement from Haiphong technical people. They were absent in all the visits of Haiphong delegations to Seattle although their Seattle partners were eager to meet with them to work on the details of the cooperation tasks.  Some cooperation programs such as urban planning and health care were not

well-thought out with clear objectives and implementation plans. Consequently, the commitment and enthusiasm of both sides for these programs were not as high as desired.

2) Dimension 2: Output Side (Results)

Accomplishments

On the output side of the partnership, both tangible and intangible results stand out as significant accomplishments. The tangible results take into account the products resulted from the cooperation programs such as training workshops, working reports, website, and other projects. Intangible results include the deepening of mutual understanding and commitment of people from the two cities and the learning by Haiphong participants about the new concepts of economic development and city management.

+ Tangible Results:

 Four reports were produced by Seattle experts during their trips to Haiphong in June 2002 concerning: website content and technical assistance, information technology strategy, analysis of tourism potential for Haiphong, and trade promotion technical assistance. The reports were highly appreciated by Haiphong partners by their valuable observations, analyses, and recommendations.

 The workshops conducted by Bill Stafford, President of Seattle/King County Trade Development Alliance (TDA) on how to market Haiphong and how to penetrate the U.S. market drew attendance from Haiphong government officials and 40-50 business leaders.

 The website of Haiphong city was substantially upgraded and its quality is ranked high among provincial/city websites in Vietnam. The managers of the

(28)

two cities’websitesaswell as their technical teams felt their cooperation on the development of Haiphong website was very productive and helpful. In particular, the Seattle partners have offered to assist Haiphong in editing the English version ofHaiphong’swebsite,especiallyas it relates to tourism, trade, and investment promotion.

 Three doctors from Haiphong attended a training program at the University of Washington

 The Greater Seattle Vietnam Association was awarded the “Seattle’s Sister

Cities Award for Best Overall Program-2000”foroutstanding contribution in promoting understanding, friendship and goodwill with Haiphong. GSVA has successfully raised funds to carry several meaningful humanitarian projects in Haiphong such as building a playground at the Ho Phuong Orphanage and providing scholarship for poor children.

+ Intangible results:

In addition to the tangible results, the Haiphong partnership has also produce worthy intangible results:

 The mutual understanding of the knowledge needed for developing a strong partnership, and the willingness to cooperate by both sides were notably deepened. The participants from Haiphong feel that they have graduated from the exploratory stage and they now better understand their Seattle partners, and better understand the potential of the partnership. The Seattle participants have also learned a lot. One expert from Seattle wrote in his report:

“…In our week of work in Haiphong we learned much about the city, the province and the country. We also learned the advantages and disadvantages of the pilot, peer-to-peerdevelopmentmodel…Our trip to Haiphong did deepen the relationship. We better understand Haiphong’s needs and strengths and what they have already accomplished. Haiphong understands more what we can do to help and how we can work together5…”

 Haiphong participants appreciate their learning of new concepts and practices of economic development and city management through exchanges with Seattle partners. Examples include:

5_Fr_om_r_e_por_t_“_We_bs_i_t_e_Cont_ent_Te_c_hni_c_a_l_As_s_i_s_t_anc_e_Tr_i_p_t_o_Ha_i_phong,_J_une₂₃

(29)

o Active participation of people is critical to the success of city urban planning:Haiphong delegates found it very interesting that the people of Seattle actively participated in the city’surban planning process. One of the drivers of its high participation rates included the fact that Seattle gave money directly to 37 neighborhoods so they could write their own neighborhood plans based on the city master plan.

o Soft assets can often be more important than physical assets: as a city that is eager to develop, Haiphong is greatly interested in development of physical assets such as roads, bridges, ports, buildings and hotels. While the physical assets take time and a lot of money to grow, the city can develop faster even with the existing physical assets by emphasizing the development of soft assets, which cost much less time and money. For example, the reports from Seattle experts noted that the city could build competitiveness in tourism by positioning itself as a peaceful city with charm of old Vietnam, and as the best organized city to assist inbound trade missions. Moreover, the marketing of Haiphong is also important and Information Technology should be exploited as much as possible to promote tourism and trade.

o Building bridges to Catba island may not be the best strategy for its development: It is a common view in Haiphong and throughout Vietnam that connecting islands to the mainland with bridges if possible is always the best way to develop an island. Haiphong had envisioned ambitious plans to invest in bridges connecting the Catba Island to the city once financing was available. The lesson of San Juan Island, however, shows a surprising lesson: preserving the natural and unique environment and developing sophisticated tourist industries on the island could be a much better development strategy for the island than integrating the island to the city mainland through a huge investment in bridges.

Shortcomings

(30)

 The four main cooperation programs underperformed relative to their original activity agendas (table 3.2).

Table 3.2.The Outcomes of the Partnership

Program Activity Agenda Results

1. Attract investment into hotel, tourism and other fields of interest for investment in Haiphong

Insignificant

2. Advertising for the expansion of tourism and trade development contacts

Insignificant

Tourism & Trade Promotion

3. Training and education Somewhat

significant 1. Establish and begin to implement a strategic

technology plan for Haiphong

Insignificant

Information Technology

2. Assist in developing a web presence for Haiphong that includes tourism, investment, and trade

Significant

1. Training for Haiphong health professionals (post-graduates, doctors, nurses, and English training)

Somewhat significant 2. Assistance with programs for fighting HIV/AIDs Insignificant

3. Assistance with cancer diagnosis Insignificant

Public Health

4. Assistance with food safety plans and professional capacity building in this regard

Insignificant

1. Implement a detailed planning task for a small area on the Highway 14.

Cancel

Urban Planning

2. Implement an urban planning task that identifies sustainable tourism development strategy for Catba island

Not yet started

(31)

 Lack of marketing materials. For example, the typical marketing materials for a city such as tourist maps or investment promotion brochures should have been designed, upgraded, or produced as a result of the cooperation between the two cities. It is worth mentioning again that one of the most important products of the partnership between the city of Haskovo (Bulgaria) and its American resources city was marketing materials, including a marketing brochure with promotion for an

industrialzone,atouristmap forthecity,and acatalogueofHaskovo’sfirms.

3) Dimension 3: Process

The“process”dimension examines the effectiveness of communication links, creativity of cooperation projects, the broadness of involvement, and the direct relationships at working levels (such as those among associations, chambers of commerce, universities, schools, and firms).

On this dimension, the accomplishments of the partnership appear moderate while the shortcomings are significant.

Accomplishments

There are three notable achievements:

 The communication links were maintained at a basic level with extensive usage of emails and the Internet. The website team of Haiphong thoroughly studied the website of the City of Seattle when developing the Haiphong website.

 Some direct relationships between Haiphong Medical University and University of Washington have been established.

 The proactive role of the Greater Seattle-Vietnam Association (GSVA), especially by President Michael Son Pham, in helping Haiphong and Seattle better understand each other’scommitmentand potentials.

Shortcomings

Three main shortcomings are weak communication links, lack of broad-based involvement, and the absence of a solid strategy and an effective implementation plan:

(32)

 Weak communication links: as discussed in the section on survey results, the Seattle partners see this problem as a major obstacle to enhancing the partnership. Haiphong partners were usually slow in responding emails or faxes from Seattle partners. Moreover, Seattle partners did not see a high level of aggressiveness from their Haiphong partners in seeking help or exchanging project ideas. As a result, the initial ambitions were somewhat reduced, and several valuable opportunities for making the partnership more fruitful were missed. There are three possible reasons behind this problem:

o The communication process in Haiphong is too centralized. Any project ideas or feedback responses need approval by the city leadership, which takes much time and usually minimizes the dynamism and creativity of people at the working level. This suggests a critical need for decentralizing the decision making process in the activities and efforts related to the partnership.

o English skills of the Haiphong partners still need improvement. But this is not a major obstacle given that there are numerous people with excellent English skills in Haiphong. Moreover, the excellent links between Seattle and Choquin (China) or Kobe (Japan), where the partners also face constraints in English skills, have proved that this obstacle can be overcome.

o Haiphong partners should adopt a common practice in international communication. If one receives an email or fax but cannot respond with adequate answers immediately, should reply anyway, with a short notice that s/he has received the mail/fax and an estimated timeframe for when they will have the answers.

 Lack of broad-based involvement: On the Haiphong side, the first phase of the partnership was dominated by the efforts of city hall. The partnership could have been much more vibrant if the involvement had been broadened to include the following potential partners:

o Haiphong port, which is the pride and economic strength of Haiphong. The ports of Seattle and Tacoma have been keen to establish a close relationship with Haiphong port as an impetus for the Haiphong Seattle partnership.

o The business sector, especially the joint-venture companies. This group would be impressed with Haiphong’spartnering with Seattleto promote the

(33)

particular, Nomura-Haiphong Industrial Park and Dinhvu Economic Zone as well as a number of hotels would be excellent supporters for the partnership to produce marketing materials for Haiphong.

o The association of non-state businesses in Haiphong (COHASHIP). This organization is an effective coordinator of the private firms in Haiphong and quite dynamic in establishing and cultivating international relationships. A direct relationship between COHASHIP and TDA would make the partnership more robust.

o Haiphong Maritime University (HMU). Haiphong is home to the main campus of the National Maritime University. This university is highly capable and experienced in nurturing international relationships. HMU would greatly benefit from a close partnership with UW, especially through student exchanges and training in business and economic management.

o High schools such as Tran Phu, Thai Phien, and Ngo Quyen. These high schools have highly qualified teachers and students who can be excellent partners for student and teacher exchanges. For example, Haiphong can send a math teacher, who has successful experience in training students winning prizes in international mathematic Olympiads, to Seattle to teach a math summer camp for students who excel in math, while Seattle can send teachers to Haiphong to teach in some English or science summer camps.  Absence of an effective strategy for fostering the partnership. The partnership did

not formulate an effective strategy to take the best advantage of the support from the WB and USAEP and navigate the cooperation to the level of self-reinforced vitality. Without this strategy, the cooperation programs and activities are usually decided in an impromptu manner and do not help to build a strong foundation for a lasting, meaningful, and vibrant partnership.

IV. Making the Development Partnership Work: Lessons Learned and Recommendations

VI.1. Lessons Learned

Having examined the accomplishments and shortfalls of the activities under the first phase of Haiphong-Seattle partnership, we can draw meaningful lessons on the

(34)

opportunities and challenges in promoting the development of a city through its Sister City partnership with a developed city.

Lesson 1: A vibrant Sister City relationship is critical to building a strong development partnership between the two cities.

The vibrancy of a Sister City relationship is determined by nine factors as shown in the first column of table 4.16: It is clear that the development partnership between Haiphong and Seattle would have been much more successful if these all nine factors had been vigorously fostered.

Table 4.1.The Haiphong-Seattle Partnership and the Key Success Factors

Factors Status in the HP–GS Partnership

Issues

1. Strong support and involvement from city hall

Very strong from both sides

Lack of a well-designed strategy to effectively materialize this support

2. Strong support and involvement from the business sector and educational institutions

Weak from HP, Medium from GS

Absence of potentially strong partners from Haiphong such as Haiphong ports, JVs, COHASHIP, and HP Maritime University.

3. Broad-based support and involvement from the community

Weak from HP, Medium from GS

People’sawarenessaboutthe development partnership is still very low in the two cites, especially HP

4. Alliances with like-minded organizations

Very strong The partnership enjoys excellent support from WB, USAEP, and ICMA

5. Strong communication links Weak Decentralization of decision making and a proactive approach by technical people need substantial improvement.

6. Clear objectives Medium The four cooperation programs are strong but their objectives are still vague.

7. Willingness to strengthen the partnership and take risks

Strong Relationships at the working level should be aggressively promoted

8. Cross cultural awareness Strong Each side has strong appreciation for the

other’sculture.

9. Regular, ongoing exchanges Medium The exchange visits under the first phase of the partnership were reliant on the WB and USAEP funding.

6_Ba_s_e_d_on_“_Si_s_t_e_r_Ci_t_i_es_I_nt_e_r_na_t_i_ona_l_:_An_I_nt_r_oduc_t_i_on”₍

(35)

Lesson 2: The two sides should place strong emphasis on broad-based participation, communication links, and getting technical people involved from the very beginning of the partnership

This lesson suggests that top priority should have been given to the following actions in the beginning of the HAIPHONG-SEATTLE partnership:

 Organizing two delegations of professionals from Haiphong to Seattle. One would include representatives from Haiphong port and business sectors with focus on business cooperation development; another comprises people from Haiphong major educational institutions with focus on educational exchange and cooperation.

 Discussing and establishing standard practices on communication: contact people, frequency, maximum time for reply, decentralization of decision making process, supervising coordinator of all communication links.

 Including technical people in all working meetings and trips to assure an in-depth level of understanding and implementation of all cooperation programs agreed upon by the two cities.

Lesson 3: Not only resources but also a solid strategy is critical to making a partnership sustainable and effective for development.

It is usually a pitfall when a partnership starts with subsidized activities. The participants may, therefore, neglect the need for a vigorous and comprehensive strategy to navigate their partnership from sponsored-reliant stage to a high level of independence with vibrant and productive involvement of all sectors. The strategy should take into account four important approaches:

 Friendship and mutual understanding must be built first as a solid foundation for the development partnership. Embracing some specific cooperation programs on development without efforts to promote broad-based mutual understanding and friendship may minimize the success of the partnership. The typical activities such as student exchanges, school-to-school partnerships, and used books collection for Haiphong libraries should have been initiated as early as possible.

(36)

 Low cost-high return activities should be given the highest priority to prove that the development partnership works and can produce meaningful results. For example, a tourist map or investment brochure for Haiphong may be more effective and less costly than work on an urban planning project.

 Gathering support and funding for promoting the partnership is a strategic effort. The partnership should proactively and strategically design and launch projects attracting strong enthusiasm and appreciation from business sectors and potential sponsors to mobilize financial resources for its increasingly vibrant activities.

 Information Technology, including the Internet, website, and emails should be exploited as much as possible to support and promote the partnership. With this emphasis, the HAIPHONG-SEATTLE partnership should have its own website or at least a section in the websites of Haiphong and Seattle to enhance the cooperation activities with best information resources, communication links, marketing efforts, and participation (feedbacks/suggestions) from the community.

Lesson 4: A development partnership takes more time and effort than expected to become effective.

The successes and challenges observed from the HAIPHONG-SEATTLE partnership shows that while the concept that a developed city can assist a developing city is brilliant with great potential value, it takes longer and requires more effort than expected to materialize the concept and reap its potential. The first phase of the partnership is carried on for about 2 years. While the accomplishments are significant, the overall satisfaction by both sides is only moderate and they foresee some significant obstacles looming ahead. It is, therefore, a transition period, and it is important to help the partnership move beyond the critical level that determines the direction of the partnership dynamics. If the partnership is in a level higher than the critical level, its vibrancy will be self-reinforced and it will reach a high level of vibrancy in the long-term; or vice versa, if the partnership is in a level lower than the critical level, it will tend to decline to the stagnant state of the Low level over time (Appendix 4).

(37)

Lesson 5: A strong advisory group is needed to coordinate the efforts of the WB and other donors in assisting a development partnership in its initiation period so that the partnership can have the best possible strategy, implementation plan, and seed money to become highly vibrant, self-reinforced within a few years.

The WB and other sponsors such as USAEP have provided the HAIPHONG-SEATTLE with generous financial support. However, their coordination was more limited in terms of providing the Haiphong-Seattle partnership with advice on strategy and implementation. It would be helpful for the partnership if there was an advisory group of people, including those with:

 experience in promoting Sister City relationships, and/or

 in-depth knowledge of the opportunities and challenges facing the economic growth and development of Haiphong, and/or

 Understanding of the potential of Seattle partners to provide Haiphong with development assistance.

The advisory group can help the two cities formulate a solid growth strategy for the partnership, identify opportunities, resources, obstacles, and potential donors, and help ensure excellent communication among all the partners involved.

Because of the advantages of the Internet, the members of the advisory group can be from Haiphong, Seattle, or anywhere in the world, yet still be strongly involved in assisting Haiphong and Seattle succeed in its development partnership.

VI.2. Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The WB, USAEP, and ICMA should extend their support for the Haiphong-Seattle partnership by 9-12 months to help the partnership get beyond the critical level (as discussed in lesson 4) to become self-reinforced and progress toward a high level of vibrancy.

To make the extension of support most effective, the following issues should be addressed:

(38)

 Forming of an advisory group for coordinating the support of the WB and other donors for the partnership as mentioned in lesson 5. The WB-Vietnam and ICMA should be the core of this group.

 Formulating a solid strategy and implementation plan that assures that the partnership will move aggressively toward the high level of vibrancy.

 Coordinating with other donor-funded programs on development in which Haiphong plays an important role. For example, the Vietnam Competitiveness Initiative Project (funded by USAID) will be underway in a few months and is expected to continue for 3 years with a budget of US $2 million per year. Haiphong could be chosen as one of the most important locations for the project to be carried out.

Recommendation 2: US donors should expend more effort fostering friendship between the two countries, especially between Seattle and Haiphong.

Lesson 3 shows a vibrant development can be built only on the foundation of a productive and flourishing friendship. Most donors only want to support projects which solve the problems of top concerns such as environmental protection, poverty alleviation, or economic development while neglecting the fact that Vietnamese partners lack understanding of the motives and practice of the US in assisting other nations in development. As a result, some skepticism may arise in US-funded projects if the relationship has not firmly built. The project of sustainable development planning for Catba could be one of the examples.

Moreover, by giving top priority to a foundation of friendship, Americans can leverage their greatest assets which include their high level of decency and their sincere appreciation for the culture and talents of their partners. For the Vietnamese, once friendship is firmly built, development partnership will enjoy their great commitment, enthusiasm, creativity, and even generous contribution. Haiphong-Seattle relationship should be built to become a symbol of the friendship between Vietnam and the US.

Recommendation 3: Haiphong in cooperation with Seattle should form Haiphong-Seattle Association for Development Partnership (HSADP) to rally support for and promote activities and projects of the partnership between Haiphong and Seattle.

This kind of association has proved very effective in the relationships between Seattle and Chonqin, Seattle and Kobe, and Sacramento and Jinan. The members of HSADP should include:

(39)

 Representatives from business sectors and educational institutions in Haiphong. In particular, it is important to include Haiphong port, Vietnam Chamber of Commerce in Haiphong (VCCI-HP), association of non-state businesses in Haiphong (COHASHIP), Haiphong Shoes and Leather Corporation, Dinh Vu Development Co., Caltex-Haiphong, Haiphong Maritime University, Haiphong Medical University.

 Vietnam’sfirms with special support for Haiphong and keen interest in developing partnership with their American partners located in Seattle or penetrating the American market such as Vietnam Maritime Corporation, Vietnam Airline, and firms in the software, garment and apparel, and food and beverage industries.

 American firms with investments in Vietnam, especially in Haiphong. These firms may want to boost their image in Vietnam by providing generous support to outstanding projects in humanitarian, friendship, and development areas. The potential members are AIG, Boeing, Mobil, Microsoft, Ford, Starbuck, and Nike.

The association should establish their own website to make their presence and communications most effective. The WB should share a partial cost in establishing the HSADP and setting up their website as a contribution to building the essential capacity for a lasting and vibrant development partnership.

Recommendation 4: The next phase of the partnership must address three critical issues: effectiveness of communication links, proactive involvement of technical people, and active broad-based participation of all sectors.

The two cities should set up norms for communication to assure their communication links are intensive and productive. In addition, the advisory group designated by the WB should also participate in these communication links to provide timely advice and support.

Haiphong should assemble a business mission and an education exchange delegation to visit Seattle within next 6-9 months. The World Bank should provide some financial support (up to 30% of the total expenses for the business mission and up 50% for the education exchange delegation).

(40)

All visits should be well-thought out by Haiphong with clear objectives before Seattle can arrange their meeting schedules. The top priority is to help Haiphong partners meet their Seattle partners and establish direct, productive partnerships.

Recommendation 5: The World Bank should expand their concept of city development partnership to include 5-10 Vietnamese and 3-5 American cities to intensify the dynamics and innovation of all cities in participating in the development partnership.

The cluster of cities participating in the partnership should include about 10 Vietnamese cities, including Haiphong, Hanoi, Hochiminh city, Halong, Haiduong, Vinh, Hue, Dannang, Nhatrang, and Cantho and about 5 American cities, including Seattle, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Boston, and Honolulu.

A cluster of cities participating in the partnership will create peer pressure and foster the dynamism, innovation, and effectiveness of communication links of the partners. It also will help address a weakness of the development strategy of the Vietnamese cities, which is the lack of regional development perspective and deficiency of coordination and cooperation among the cities.

The expansion of the development partnership is also important to make the program national and to get strong encouragement from the Vietnamese government. The commitment and enthusiasm of the Vietnamese cities will be much stronger once the government makes the program a national pilot project.

Having a large number of cities in the program will also increase economies of scale and the potential for distinctive initiatives with outstanding impacts and valuable lessons.

(41)

IV. Conclusion

Promoting development through city-to-city partnership is a brilliant concept. A developed city can share with a developing city its experience, expertise, and vision in development. Cities in a developing country, especially in Vietnam can greatly benefit from this kind of valuable assistance.

It is, however, not easy, to lift a development partnership to a vibrantly self-reinforced level. It takes huge effort to build the friendship foundation between the two cities, to formulate a solid strategy for the growth of the partnership, and to enlist the broad-based active involvement of all sectors in the partnership.

It is valuable if the WB keeps promoting this concept by further enhancing the Haiphong-Seattle partnership and expanding it to include additional Vietnamese and American cities. The investment of the WB and other donors in this project will not only have a very high return but will also present a new and distinctive way to cultivate the potential benefits of globalization to advance growth and development in developing countries.

A First Phase Evaluation Report

Haiphong-Greater Seattle

Development Partnership: