Recently, speculation unveiled upcoming meetings between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Vietnam. The two parties seek to finally resolve disagreements involving nuclear production and trade disputes. Furthermore, spokespersons noted rumors involving Kim Jong-un’s interest in rearranging the economic system upon which North Korea revolves. Economists now consider this visit by Kim Jong-un a disguised informational tour of Vietnamese economic structures. Since the two countries experienced similar histories and political constructions, many officials deem this opportunity beneficial, especially paired with Vietnam’s overall economic success. Proponents argue a North Korean imitation of Vietnamese policy could stimulate necessary economic growth, ease global tensions, and foster new political relationships.

Of course, North Korea’s unpredictable political behavior produces varied sentiments among diplomatic audiences. However, political economy analysts still hold out hope for a globally advantageous outcome.  The expert professor Koh Yu-hwan of Dongguk University in Seoul stated “what’s clear is that Kim Jong-un is desperate to ease sanctions and find his own ways of boosting production and improving the lives of his people.” Last year, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted that “the fact that we’re cooperating — and not fighting — is proof that when a country decides to create a brighter future for itself alongside the United States, we follow through on American promises.” Even President Donald Trump recently tweeted proudly: “North Korea will become a kind of Rocket – an Economic one!” Nonetheless, skeptics remain suspicious of the true outcome of the discussion involving the United States, North Korea, and Vietnam. Mr. Le Hong Hiep, a Vietnam expert at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, expressed several doubts. Chiefly, he is concerned because “Kim Jong-un has proven to be an independent-minded leader, and he may not like to officially acknowledge that he is following another country’s model, especially under external influence or pressure.”

Nevertheless, Kim Jong-un’s openness to regime reconstruction leaves the door ajar for globally beneficial transformations. The emulation of Vietnamese liberalized commercial policy might boost North Korea’s economic growth and the population’s overall well being. These alterations would also potentially produce several positive externalities for international markets: increased international exchange, strengthened political relationships, and broader constructive conversation. Even further, these exchanges could produce vital attitude shifts in the North Korean government towards denuclearization, which is the US’ primary goal. In all, the United States and Vietnamese administrations are providing a grand communal service by maintaining contact with Kim Jong-un.

Vietnam in particular holds the key to this collective success. The two nations share extremely similar historical and economic backgrounds, which is essentially why North Korea considered this option to begin with. Vietnam’s recent achievements in economic restructuring further provide incentives for North Korean conversion. Under the “Doi Moi” reforms, Vietnamese officials moved from a principally state-owned economy to a socialist market-system. Intriguingly, Vietnam followed a fairly Chinese “tiger model,” relying heavily on a favorable exchange rate and an export-led progression, as executed by several countries in the region. Though economic development should be tailored to the individual needs of the country, Vietnam’s similarities to North Korea make the country a promising role-model for Kim Jong-un’s aspirations.

Ultimately, the North Korean leader must weigh the pros and cons of a more liberalized economy. Though he truly aspires for his country’s development, this conversion might come at the cost of less government oversight, effectively loosening his political influence. Yet if he chooses this process, he must ensure it develops on North Korea’s terms, which must include necessary assistance in industrial advancements. Ultimately, this support determines the longevity of a tailored, export-driven strategy. Therefore, North Korea will require help from the US or some other nation. For this reason, fruitful dialogue between the two administrations appears necessary to achieve all of these goals and ought be appreciated by international market participants, as it should lead to a resolution of tensions between these countries.