I enjoyed the conversation very much.Thank you all for your interest and participation.Unfortunately, we could not answer all the questions due to time constraints.If you have any additional questions, please send them to me (in English or Vietnamese) via Twitter at @gdemom.

The first challenge relates to the discriminate treatment of different types of economic ownership that should have been removed since long time. Backed-up by more concessional access to land and financing, SOEs tempted poor investments resulting in the enrichment of a few individuals and interest groups while very few jobs have been generated for the people. The rich and poor gap has widened rapidly as a consequence.

Secondly, Vietnam has not intervened early enough to address the current bold contrast between rich and poor. The 10% poorest group only accounts for 4% national income and expenditures while the same figure of the 10% richest group is 30%. The income difference between these two groups is 8 folds. In addition, rural-urban gap is widening fast but not appropriately addressed at the moment. Rural laborers go to seek jobs in cities and add to the army of urban poor. After 30 years, farmers remain the group to benefit least from the reform and development.

Thirdly, unfair recruitment of talented people is another major barrier to social inclusion. Unqualified people, both in terms in ethical qualities and professional skills, by various channels are put in important positions which give them power and benefits but cause a great amount of waste and loss to the nation’s wealth. Worse is that this frustrates social positive attitudes, undermines trust and has a negative impact on human resource quality and economic development. I believe that some radical reform is needed urgently in the field of human resource development.

It is clear that corruption is an obstacle for social inclusion in many ways. First, demands for bribes can limit access to health and education to only those who can pay. This is unjust and an obvious problem for social inclusion. Second, the theft of public money reduces the funds available for social programs. Third, the perception that some people obtain their position or wealth through corruption can undermine trust in institutions and create social unrest. We discussed some of these issues in an analysis of perceptions of inequality that we published in the July 2014 Taking Stock report.

Vietnam encourages people to become rich in a proper and legitimate way and Vietnam also promotes social equity. It is reasonable to expect more contribution from rich people because as they make more money, they also need to bear higher responsibility to share risks with the rest. The personal income tax and asset tax systems should be able to collect higher amounts [from rich people] and the state would redistribute it towards social security and social assistance programs. This should provide more support to disadvantage groups, including those affected by natural catastrophes. By 2035, Vietnam would hopefully be a modern middle-income economy and the size of its rich, and middle class will be bigger. It is important that this majority group assume more responsibility towards the minority poor in the society.

There is no single recipe for success in social inclusion. My observation is that what matters is a genuine effort on the part of government, and that all members of society have a voice. Vietnam has been considered a successful case of social inclusion since Doi Moi. But past successes are not a guarantee of future performance. In the 2035 report, we are examining the new and different challenges of social inclusion the country faces going forward.

There are many countries that have not been so successful at social inclusion. For example, in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, where I used to work, policies have benefitted a small elite. The institutions in many of those countries exclude the voice of many members of those societies.

I also wanted to share a few thoughts questions on the question Mr. Dang Nguyen Anh answered above about tradeoffs between growth and social inclusion:

Many people used to think that there was a strong tradeoff between inclusion (or equality) and growth. But the consensus among economists is now that many policies both foster inclusion and boost growth. In particular, improving access to opportunity for all members of society is recognized as vital to growth. If some citizens do not have adequate nutrition or access to education, they will not be able to fulfill their potential, and this will depress growth.

Additionally, the policies that help people better manage risk can help boost growth. For example, people may be afraid to leave their family farm and pursue opportunity in a city because of risks of unemployment or sickness far from the family. If society can help insure against the risks, people can be empowered to migrate or move into more productive jobs, which can increase growth.

Social inclusion should have no limit. But there must be a minimum level of inclusion in society because it ensures social cohesion, a very important precondition for a society to survive and develop.

In fact, we should not see things that way, i.e. we should not see social inclusion as a trade-off to growth. On the contrary, growth of income, employment, opportunities etc. is a required condition for social inclusion. For instance, enterprises development would provide better jobs to the youth and hence contribute more to poverty reduction and enhance social inclusion.

For the 2035 we are thinking about two classes of issues. The first is about ensuring that the least fortunate are included. The second is about protecting all members of Vietnamese society from the new risks that the country faces in a modern, middle class market economy.

The first set of issues is familiar. It includes questions of equality of opportunity, for example basic nutrition, education, and access to other services.

The second set of issues includes broader elements of social inclusion. Key issues we are examining for the 2035 report include the system of support for the elderly, the social safety net, health insurance, and labor market institutions. As Vietnam becomes a middle income, middle class society, two things change. Vietnamese face new risks. They also have new expectations for what the government will do. This will require policy changes.

This starts with economic aspects because they reflect equal opportunities in development, resources, employment and income. But social dimensions are also very important. There could be economic inclusion without social inclusion. Let’s take workers in some industrial zones as an example: while their incomes could be commensurate with what they deliver at work, but their cultural and spiritual life is poor and their level of social inclusion remains very low.

OECD has put forward indicators for measuring social inclusion that take into account people’s participation, the rights to access basic social services such as information, education, health, employment and legal services. These indicators reflect the equal voice and contribution as well as the share in growth benefits of all people regardless who they are.

I don’t have any view on the choice of terminology in Vietnamese. I do not have a comparative advantage in this area. We think about social inclusion in a very broad sense, not just economic. Social inclusion means that every member can participate fully in the society and enjoy all the benefits and opportunities of the society.

There is no original word in the Vietnamese language that perfectly matches social inclusion. Some refer to it as "social integration” (hòa nhập xã hội) while others refer to it as "growth for all” or "social embracing” (bao trùm xã hội). One could translate it as "social equity” as well but this is not correct either, because social equity is the end target that we aim for. I refer to social inclusion as "growth for everyone” or "avoidance of social exclusion”.