There are few major financial centers in the world that emerged from finance alone. History offers a clear pattern: behind London stood global trade; behind Singapore stood its port and logistics ecosystem; and behind Hong Kong stood its role as China’s gateway for international commerce. Against this backdrop, Vietnam’s decision to begin with maritime finance and aviation finance may reflect a more pragmatic approach to its ambition of building an international financial center.

In recent months, alongside the development of the Vietnam International Financial Center (VIFC), several new initiatives have attracted attention from observers, particularly proposals related to maritime finance and aviation finance. Rather than focusing immediately on traditional financial sectors such as asset management, investment banking, or international securities trading, Vietnam appears to be pursuing a different path—one that begins with real economic activities in which the country already possesses certain advantages. This approach echoes a familiar principle in international economic history: trade often comes first, and finance follows. Today, London is widely recognized as one of the world’s leading financial centers. Yet London did not become a financial powerhouse because it already had a highly developed financial sector. Its original foundation was maritime trade and Britain’s global trading network. The need to finance goods, facilitate international payments, insure maritime transport, and manage commercial risks drove the creation of increasingly large and sophisticated financial institutions. Lloyd’s of London, for example, did not begin as a global insurance giant. It started as a meeting place for shipowners, merchants, and investors seeking to share the risks associated with ocean voyages. From such practical commercial activities, a financial ecosystem gradually emerged. Singapore’s story is similar. In the decades following its independence in 1965, the city-state’s greatest advantage was not finance but geography and logistics. As its port developed into a regional transshipment hub, demand grew for payment services, insurance, trade finance, and foreign exchange. Finance evolved as a consequence of commercial activity, rather than the other way around. Hong Kong is no exception. Its role as a financial center was built upon its position as a commercial gateway between China and the rest of the world for many decades. The flow of goods, investment, and businesses through Hong Kong generated demand for international financial services, which in turn fueled the growth of capital markets, banking, and insurance—not only contributing to Hong Kong’s prosperity but also supporting the development of mainland China’s financial system and economy. Viewed from this perspective, Vietnam’s initiatives in maritime and aviation finance can be seen as an effort to connect the development of its financial center with real economic transactions already taking place within the country. In the maritime sector, Vietnam now possesses one of the fastest-growing port systems in the region. The Cai Mep–Thi Vai port complex has become an important node in international supply chains. Yet most high-value maritime services—including ship financing, marine insurance, reinsurance, risk management, and international legal services—are still largely conducted in Singapore or Hong Kong. A similar situation exists in aviation. Vietnam’s aviation market ranks among the fastest-growing in Asia, but high-value-added activities such as aircraft leasing, aviation financing, aviation insurance, and financial structures supporting airline fleets continue to be arranged primarily through foreign financial centers. In other words, while the real economic activities occur in Vietnam, a significant portion of the financial value generated from those activities is created and recorded elsewhere. From this standpoint, the objective of maritime and aviation finance is not merely to establish new financial sectors. More importantly, it is an effort to retain a larger share of the financial value associated with Vietnam’s own logistics, trade, and transportation activities. That said, this remains a highly challenging strategy. History shows that successful financial centers are not built solely on transaction volume or economic activity. The enduring appeal of London, Singapore, and Hong Kong rests on less tangible factors: the enforceability of contracts, the transparency of legal systems, effective dispute resolution mechanisms, policy stability, and investor confidence. In other words, maritime finance and aviation finance may serve as starting points for a financial center, but they cannot substitute for the institutional foundations required of a truly international financial hub. For this reason, the greatest value of the current initiatives may not lie in the amount of capital they attract or the volume of transactions they generate in the short term. More significant is the fact that they demonstrate a relatively pragmatic approach to building the VIFC. Rather than attempting to replicate the models of London, Singapore, or Hong Kong, Vietnam appears to be choosing a path better suited to its own stage of development: starting from the strengths of the real economy and gradually expanding into higher-value-added financial services. It may still be too early to say whether Vietnam will successfully establish an international financial center. However, beginning with the real flows of economic activity rather than purely financial ambitions is arguably an encouraging choice. Throughout history, trade has often come first and finance has followed. If that pattern continues to hold true, maritime finance and aviation finance may not be the final destination of the VIFC, but rather its point of departure. (*) University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (**) Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Engineering