Lawrence H. Summers (right) and PM Phan Van Khai

It is not at all clear to me that developments in the EU will not actually be pro-liberalization for countries outside the EU because there was the difficulty that a stronger Brussels bureaucracy would find coherence and consensus only through an increase in protection.

Globalization has been accompanied by an increase in income inequality in both the US and Vietnam. Do you think that globalization causes inequality? If so, is there anything that can be done to reduce it without reversing its benefits?

Globalization does not necessarily increase inequality. Providing a substantial volume of manufacturing jobs in developing countries is a very important way of developing a middle class, which is very much key to enable society. So is increasing the level of education. The best available evidence suggests that there is no systematic relationship between increased growth through openness and changes in the level of inequality.

You are the head of a major global university, and US higher education is becoming the de facto model for the world. What accounts for the success of the US model of higher education? Is it likely to endure or do you see other models superseding it? It appears that developing top-tier universities is very costly. Do you have any advice for poor nations like Vietnam that would benefit from having such institutions, but seem to have great difficulty in developing them?

The success of higher education in the United States reflects many things. It reflects a commitment to resources. It reflects a culture within universities where there is little room for central authority, but instead where all ideas can flourish.

Crucial to the success of American universities is an abiding commitment to the authority of ideas rather than the idea of authority. If a young graduate student who has been at Harvard 18 months disproves a senior professor's interpretation of a text, this act is applauded by all; often the first person to offer congratulations is the person whose work has been corrected. Maintaining this ferment, this clash of perspectives, and this reliance on the authority of ideas is a key to our success.

Also crucial is that universities compete vigorously with each other: for the best students, the best young faculty, and the allegiance of donors. Success does not come from the parroting of orthodoxy, but from the creation of insight. Without the competitive environment, the tendency toward self-replication, toward inbred comfort, could become dominant.

Finally, governing a university is a subtle thing. As we've seen too often abroad, and increasingly in public higher education here, efforts by larger governmental bodies to manage aspects of public life are doomed to fail. Creativity is repelled rather than attracted, inspiration is dulled — and disappointment is the result. At the same time, we have also seen that the team cannot be managed by its players. Too often, universities have been managed with academic leaders elected by faculty, students, and staff, thus undercutting mandates to impose high standards and the creation of leadership horizons sufficient for true long-term innovation.

Success depends on the middle ground. Leadership that is strong, not bureaucratic; leadership that recognizes the best ideas come from creative scholars, not managers; and leadership that knows that if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. For priorities, like energy, like capital, must be conserved.

Interview by Nguyen Anh Tuan