While the political elites in the country may not have wished to share their authority and command with other leaders and the populace, this situation was necessitated by the states experience of near starvation in the 80s - a situation that demanded that the political leadership open up to other interest groups for the country’s survival. Philippines on the other hand has a weak state that is characterized by weak social institutions and personalistic presidential politics. The national and central government has massive control over the public and private sectors with power entrenched in oligarchs, their families, and their cronies. Generally, the centralization of government in Philippines has led the country to be less competitive as oligarchs and clans retain control over resources.
Even though electoral democracy exists in the Philippines, the country continues to witness systemic corruption and limited economic growth compared to Vietnam which has an authoritarian government. This is the case with the Philippines considering that the social institutions and government bodies that are charged with the responsibility of fighting corruption and putting the government on check are dominated by different clans and oligarchs who are keen on protecting their interests as opposed to performing their duties. The power that the oligarchs, their families, and their cronies wield together with the personalistic politics that characterize the country have seen corruption thrive in the Philippines. This is not the case in Vietnam where the government is decentralized, political leaders have responsibility to their constituents, and provinces have the power to control what is done at the state