There have been considerable changes in Vietnamese economic thinking since the early liberation days in 1975 when initial problems of economic reconstruction and consolidation were indeed daunting. Concerted efforts by the Party to create a workable economy at that time were frustrated by a combination of natural calamities, bad management, poor motivation as well as politico-strategic developments beyond the expectation and control of the leadership. So, in urgent response to a desperate situation, a set of new economic policies — intended to produce a “bung ra” in the economy — received official (albeit not entirely unanimous) endorsement for implementation. Still being implemented, the new policies remain a source of controversy, not only within Vietnam but extending to diplomatic, economic, academic and journalistic circle outside the country — involving speculations and discussions on the implications and prospects for Vietnamese socialism.

There are observers who compare Hanoi's present liberal reforms to the New Economic Policy (NEP) Lenin introduced in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. The comparison suggests that Vietnam's leaders may have learned from the Soviet experience, a conclusion seemingly supported by the country's membership in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) as well as close ties and heavy reliance (economic and military) on Moscow. By contrast, at the official level, the VCP leadership has not hesitated to stress its antipathy towards Maoist dogma. In particular, the conflict with China had made it convenient for Party “pragmatists” to blame rejected aspects of Vietnam's socialist system on outside influence, Maoism. Such repudiations coupled with the apparently “harmonious” Soviet-Vietnamese relationship have led to not illogical inferences of Vietnam's receptiveness to Soviet opinions and persuasions.

That there are certain resemblances between Hanoi's economic liberalization measures and Lenin's NEP is readily established by examining the latter's contents. In describing the NEP, one scholar wrote: