Thai Foreign Policy Study Approach at The Crossroads

1st ASEAN Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences
28-30 May 2015, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Thai Foreign Policy Study Approach at the Crossroads

Arthit Thongin*
Abstract
The article is a part of the literature review and theoretical framework in the research project named A Year of
Thai Foreign Policy under General Prayuth Chan-ocha Government (12 September 2014-12 September 2015). It aims to
review the Thai foreign policy study approach in the past as well as to make a debate on research methodology.
The article reveals that the mainstream Thai foreign policy (TFP) study approach still holds on the traditional
behavioralist manner, and has little dynamic on research methodology. In contrast, the Thai public policy (TPP) study
approach has continuous dynamic throughout time, even though they were developed from same academic origin. In the
light of behavioralism, the TPP study, different from the TFP study, lively has developed the various means and methods,
intimately parallel to the international academic society outside. Furthermore, many case studies of Thai foreign policy
show that their results are not relevant to the real situations of Thai states foreign policy process as the decision makers
really work. These facts lead to the major question on concurrent validity of these researches.
On this account, the article concludes with some contest arguments for the current Thai foreign policy study
approach. Standing at the crossroad, the TFP study approach must chooses a way: either yielding to traditional approach
or seeking for alternative approach by primary surveying the various research methodologies in the kindred fields. Last
but not least, I do not know what kind of destination is on the alternative way. But I surely know that the new and
progressive goals definitely arent on the same old road which brings travelers back to the same old places, and we cant
only sit on the fence.
Keywords: Thai Foreign Policy Study Approach, Thai Public Policy Study Approach, Research Methodology
Introduction
This article is enhanced from the literature review and theoretical framework, which is a part of the research
project named A Year of Thai Foreign Policy under General Prayuth Chan-ocha Government (12 September 2014-12
Lecturer, College of Social Innovation, Rangsit University; Email: arthit.t@rsu.ac.th

September 2015). It aims to present some arguments for the Thai foreign policy (TFP) study approach, divided in to 6
parts.
Definitions of Public Policy and Foreign Policy

Public policy means a set of goals, values, plans, and actions of the state which is occurred to solve some
problems or response to public interests.1 This kind of meaning shows that the public policy issue covers from the step
of policy formulation, policy implementation, to policy evaluation. Thus, the public policy is rather process than
product.
As a kindred field of study, foreign policy has 4 main characters. Firstly, it reflects the states official aspiration
embraced the principles and goals about international interaction. Secondly, it is the action. Thirdly, it is the course of
action. And finally, it is the standard of decision making (Callahan, 1982: 293-306). On account of these characters, the
definition of foreign policy envelops at least 3 points: (1) the goals, national interests, and general values; (2) the pla ns
or courses of actions for achieving those goals; (3) the implementation for carrying through those plans or response in
international issues. (Chittick, 1975: 11)
On the relationship between two terms above, the foreign policy is a type of public policy and exists among
various policies of state. It is the comprehensive approach of any governments for guiding the actions aimed to seek
or maintain the national interests (Thanapongsathorn, 1979: 237)
Epistemology of Public Policy Study and Foreign Policy Study in Behavioralism Era
Besides of the relationship of terms I mention above, public policy and foreign policy still had some common
epistemological fulcrum in the era of Behavioralism. These two related fields both included scientific logic as the pattern
of study. They emphasized on the knowledge derived from empirical and measurable data. And their research
methodologies aimed mainly to understand the phenomenon in the eyes of Causal law as well as try to generalization of
the studied issues. This kind of epistemology named Positivism. (Anumanrachathon, 2001: 12-15)
Under the umbrella of Behavioralism strongly dominated the American political science society in the 1960s1970s, the study of public policy-in the field of public administration-weighted much on the research about the policy
process (Worathepputthipong, 1997: 75-88). There were several important theoretical frameworks developed at that time,
clearly reflected the influence of behavioral approach:
1) The systematic analysis of public policy: It fundamentally viewed politics and society in term of system,
liked physical system, biological system, or ecosystem. On this basis, the politics thus was understood in a systematic
image of relationship between related factors within that system. There were many political scientists applied the idea of
1
I edit this meaning from its definitions appear in these works: David Easton (1960); Ira Sharkansk (1970); James Anderson (1979); Morton
Kroll (1969); Thomas Dye (1981)
[128]

system to described the domestic politics. David Easton (1965) was a luminous one I talked about. In the public
administration field of study, a famous scholar who adopted that idea for analyzing public policy process was Ira
Sharkansky (1970). And because the focus of analysis was on the system, this approach of study hence was alternatively
named public policy system. The public policy system was the tri-relationship between 3 factors that together produced
the policy process: policy stakeholders; policy environment; public policy. The public policy in process I mentioned
could be both independent and dependent variable in the process, depended on the focus of each work.
(Thamrongthanyawong, 1987: 14-16)2
2) The process model: It considered policy decision as a type of political activity, which included 5 stages: (1)
problem analysis; (2) policy formulation; (3) policy adoption; (4) policy implementation; (5) policy evaluation.
3) The cause-effect approach: this approach of public policy study had 3 domains: (1) it aimed to described the
relationship between three variables, included the cause of policy formulation-the policy itself-and the impact of policy;
(2) under this approach, the policy study could occur in two ways, the study of policy as a dependent variable determined
by factors about cause of policy formulation-and the study of policy as an independent variable resulted in some impact;
(3) the cause-effect approach also attempted to prescribed the suitable course of policy effectiveness evaluation which
consist of two main types, the policy objectivities attainment evaluation and the public evaluation of policy effectiveness
Under the same behavioral umbrella, foreign policy study-which Richard Snyders group was named as a
leading scholar (Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin, 1962; Frankel, 1959: 1-11; Deutsch, 1957: 200-211)-could be divided in to
two main approaches of analysis3:
1) The analysis at a macro level: It had 2 important theories which showed below.
(1)The System Theory-It was developed on the conceptual framework of David Easton in a same light
as the study of public policy. This trend was leaded by 2 groups at least: the group of Snyder, Bruck and Sapin (eds.,
1962), and the group of McGowan and Shapiro (1973). This development supported a fact that Eastons System Theory
had influenced both on foreign policy and public policy study.
(2) The Social Field Theory-It aimed to analyze the foreign policy behavior in very empirical sense.
Liked a farmers field, the social field theory simulated the world as a field and collected all set of every states
relationship in one unified frame. In that virtual field, the theory considered the difference and the resemble comparison
between each pair of states and resulted in a plot reflected distance between those states in the social field. This theory
assumed that the distance plotted from resemble comparison in the simulated field was a factor determined behavior and
relationship in the real world.
2) The analysis at a micro level: It had 4 main focal points of analysis as I mentioned below.
Moreover, you may read furthered about the analysis of bringing system theory-as a decision making model-into the Thai politics study(the
P-M Approach), from Patcharee Siroross work (2555: 52-65)
3
I write this part further from a paper of Corrine Phuangkasem named Thailands Relations and Foreign Policy (1980-Present) (document
of subject PO640: Seminar on International Relations of Thailand, Master of Arts Program in Political Science, Faculty of Political Science,
Thammasat University.
[129]

(1) The analysis about the determined factors of foreign policy-It was consisted of 4 principal
theories: the national attributes theory (Sullivan, 1976); the distance concept (Sullivan, 1976); the foreign policy analysis
model of Patrick McGowan and Howard (1973) and; the linkage politics concept (Rosenau, 1969)
(2) The analysis of policy formulation process and decision making-Most of theory in this group
minded to consider about the rationality of policy decision making. They also tried to create the general law, could
explain every cases of study, in form of various decision-making models. Elite model, Institutional model, Bureaucratic
model, Process model are for instance. (Laddawan Na Ayuddhaya, 1999)
(3) The analysis of foreign policy output-This group was separated into 2 subsets: the qualitative and
quantitative approach of study. On the one hand, the qualitative study emphasized on the strict explanation of policy
content by text and the concept creation for examining the policy meaning. On the other hand, the quantitative study often
looked for a measurable set of operational variables which could use to describe the foreign policy in various dimensions.
(Callahan, et al., 1982: 17-23)
(4) The analysis of foreign policy outcome or impact-The essence of this approach was policy
evaluation considered widely on the outcome, impact, and feedback of policy. In addition, the works about Thai foreign
policy study in this point of analysis has been scarce.
Due to those I presented above, the foreign policy and public policy study both were influenced by behavioral
paradigm, at least in 4 points: (1) inclusion of system theory; theoretical development framed in the causal law; seeking
the generalization of policy behavior; faith in empirical and measurable data/ tangible factors.
The Dynamic of Public Policy and Foreign Policy Study in the Post-Behavioralism Era
After the era of Behavioralism, the public policy and foreign policy study seem to gradually split from each
other. Even though the foreign policy study-in the international academic circle-has developed various novel approaches 4,
the mainstream foreign policy study in Thailand still weights so much on traditional research methodology in behavioral
spirit. While the examples of novel approach in international academic circle include of discourse analysis (Larsen, 1997;
Campbell, 1998) and other post-structuralist thought (Kuehls, 1996), some of major works in Thailand academic circle
are as I present below:
The study of Foreign Policy of the Sarit Thanarats Regime towards Cambodia (Youchat, 2006) focused on
the analysis about determined factors of foreign policy framed in the system theory-used it in deductive way. It found that
Thailand foreign policy at that time was caused from both domestic and external factors.
4
The foreign policy analysis generally be separated into 6 principal approaches: (1) traditional approach; (2) comparative approach; (3)
bureaucratic structures and processes approach liked the famous work of Graham Allison (1971); (4) cognitive process and psychology
approach such as a work of Robert Jervis about perception and misperception (1976); (5) multilevel and multidimensional approach and; (6)
social constructivist approach liked the works of Ioannis (John) F. Galariotis (2008: online), Kseniia Chernysh (2010: online), Anne L.
Clunan (2009), Christian Thorun (2009). In addition, you can read the details about each approach above from a work of Robert Jackson and
Georg Sorensen named Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (2013: 252-256).
[130]

The study of Foreign Policy of Thailand: Study of the Policy Decision Making Process of General Chartchai
Choonhavan Government Towards Cambodia Problem (4 August 1983-23 February 1991 (Phasuk, 1996) mainly
presented, in the light of bureaucratic politics model, the conflict in foreign policy process which caused of the different
standpoint between the government house and the ministry of foreign affairs
The study of Thailand Foreign Policy Towards Vietnam Since General Cartchai Choonhavan GovernmentThaksin Shinawatra Government (1988-2004) (Rathaboriraksa, 2006) emphasized on two main points: the input factors
analysis framed in Mcgowan and Shapiros model; the policy content analysis drove by the concept of national interests.
The latter could be called in another name as the policy evaluation because this work focused to examine the results of
each governments foreign policy. And the successive indicator it used was the national interests. On this account, its
methodology could be termed deductive theory.
The work about Thai Foreign Policy: Seeking Influence (Funston, 1998) showed the dynamic of Thailand
foreign policy since 1980s-about the end of 1990s, mainly reflected the correlation between domestic and external factors
as well as the influence of major actors on policy process in each period. On consideration about research methodology,
this work could be categorized into the historical research principally based on documentary analysis.
The study of Thailand Foreign Policy Towards ASEAN: The Case Study of Chuan Leekpai Government
(1997-2001) (Naichid, 2001) and the study of Thailand Foreign Policy In The Frame of ASEAN in 1990s
(Shaowatong, 2004) both used the interdependence theory as the conceptual framework. Despite a paper of Itthichai went
further by including analysis at the decision maker level on behalf of decision making theory, both works were mostly
closed to each other in the research methodology dimension: descriptive analysis and deductive theory.
The work about Thailand Foreign Policy in the IMF Era (Thepchatree, 2000) is also based on deductive
theory style. It aimed to analysis 3 principal points: Thailands economic environment in the era of IMF; vision and goals
of Thailand government; mechanism policies and measures of Thailand government. In fact of its content, this work
weighted rather on prescriptive than descriptive analysis.
The work on Foreign Policy of Thailand (Pakapatvivat, 2007) focused on policy contents, input factors, and
international actions of Chuan 2 government and Thaksin government. It relied on system theory and 2 decision making
theories; environmental probabilism and game theory. This work was also deductive theory seeking to explain the foreign
policy in the language of causal law and rationality.
The study of Thailand Foreign Policy towards China: The Comparative Study Between Thaksin Shinawatra
Government and Chuan Leekpai Government (Buakaew, 2007) was another work based on behavioral approach, by
including the decision making model of Snyder Bruck and Sapin as the conceptual framework
The article named The Critics of Thaksinanuwattra: The Foreign Policy Role of Thailand (Phuangkasem,
2003) had 2 focused points: the analysis stressed on policy decision makers; the policy content analysis which aimed to
generalized the phenomenon. Overall, this work was based on inductive reasoning.
As all I mentioned above, the mainstream approach of Thailand foreign policy study still weights so much on
traditional research methodology in behavioral spirit-compared to the more dynamic Thailand public policy study. In the
academic circle of Thailand public policy study, there has been continuous development about research methodology that
[131]

many concepts are included to the field such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework-ACF (Paul Sabatier and Hank
Jenkins-Smith, eds., 1993; Paul Sabatier, 1999); the policy networks concept (Siroros, 2012: 30-51; Kamolvej, 2010: 3947); the concept of democratizing policy deliberation (Kamolvej, 2010: 47-53)
From where I stand, I have no problem with using behavioral logic as the main epistemology of Thailand
foreign policy study. I have more concern about 4 epistemological weak points of that academic circle: holding too much
on deductive theory; the subjectivity of work-interpretation from researchers background than explaining the
phenomenon; lack of standard policy evaluation; the conservative mind.
Thailand Foreign Policy Study Approach and Foreign Affairs in Real World
It is unclear that we can reach the understanding of Thailands actual foreign policy and foreign affairs from
whether foreign policy knowledge (in the field of international relations) or public policy knowledge (in the field of
public administration). In fact, that question seems to be nave. Because plan and policy analysis in the real world
actually relies on many disciplines, came together to entirely portray the situation and recommend the suitable policy
options. In spite of that condition of real policy process, the focuses of many works in academic world mainly anchor in 3
domains as I criticized below:
1) The analysis of input factors: Many works were written rather from the knowledge background of the authors
than the actual factors determined the decision makers. Above all, they favored to start with creating 3 boxes represented
3 level of analysis-national, regional, and global level-and pack the information suit to their prior knowledge down into
each box.
2) The analysis of policy making process: The maxim of this approach is seeking the concordance between the
decision-making models in the textbook and the phenomenon. It also pays attention only to show many actors in policy
making circle and how they look liked, rather than trying to reflect the mechanism between those actors and trace back to
the source of policy formulation.
3) The analysis of foreign policy outputs, outcomes, and impacts: The popular trend of this approach is
summarizing the studied policies into pattern. Though there were many frameworks about policy assessment developed
in Behavioralism era, very few scholars applied them for studying Thailand foreign policy evaluation. For the existed
works in this approach, their criteria mostly are not concrete enough. And whether the recommendations of those
literatures are benefit to the actual foreign affairs.
The Challenged Recommendations to the Thailand Foreign Policy Study

During the past, there are some efforts try to reduce the gap between the academic world and the world of
practicality. The masterpiece is the theory of global policy science imported by Prapat Thepchatree (2000). Although he
asserted that the concept was developed from the security policy case studied in global, regional, and national level (so
we could claimed it as an inductive theory), the position of this concept in Thailand foreign policy study seems to be the
[132]

manual for analysis in any case, strict considering step by step as the theory said. On this way interacted with theory,
many results of analysis were not relevant to the actual policy making process. For instance, the decision makers may not
always consider each option and calculate it on the principle of rationality. Furthermore, many works embraced this
theory likely are more prescriptive than descriptive even though they aim the latter as research objectives. 5
Aiming to develop the study approach, I decide to use my case study of Thailand foreign policy under General
Prayuth Chan-Ocha government as an experimental courtyard about theory and research methodology. From data
collecting initially, the present government push foreign affairs into 3 aspects of policies declared to the National
Legislative Assembly: security defense and foreign affairs; national economic potential improvement and; promoting the
role and grasping the opportunity in ASEAN Community.
In the policy making process, the related bureaucratic officials are the key players recommended the policies
based on functional plan they legally took. Another important is the role of The Office of the National Economic and
Social Development Board (NESDB) who compiles the specific plans of each ministry and categorizes them into each
policy aspect and created a set of successive indicators. Those indicators were arranged into two levels: the policy
outcomes indicators aimed to evaluate the successive or expected resulted; the policy outputs indicators aimed to see in
each 3 months of policy implementation. On later condition of progressive assessment and job monitoring, the outputs
indicators also were named the key performance indicators or the milestone indicators as well (Klongvithee, 2015). For
the feedback stage, the related ministries must report their outputs indicators back to the Secretariat of the Prime Minister
by every 3 month.
Based on my cases study about the Gen. Prayuth governments foreign policy process, I push some of the
challenged arguments to Thailand foreign policy study as below:
1) To realize that foreign policy is derived from the plans and routine job of each related ministries, the focus of
analysis hence mainly relies on the level of those state agencies at first step. The study may include such analysis as the
mechanism of relevant actors relationship in the policy process, the policy formulation and, the policy networks and
policy communities in various types.
2) In part of inputs analysis, the study process should begin collecting data from the actors those administrate in
the ministry level. Its remarkable that this kind of study logic put itself on the reversed process to many works on
Thailand foreign policy. While precedent works used the theory in deductive way, the study logic I proposed here will
start with the observation of phenomenon and conceptual form it onto the general law which be termed inductive theory.
3) As I mentioned in the previous section, major trend of studying Thailand foreign policy is the input factors
analysis for purpose of setting the causal relation pattern between independent variables and the foreign policy (as
dependent variable). However, those input factors cannot determined the policy making or tell the story by itself. Indeed,
they must be interpreted and defined by actors who perform as the connecting machine, link relevant factors with the
situations and policy making process.
Such as the works of Aksaraphak Sumphaokaew named Thailand Political and Security Foreign Policy Towards the United of America post
the incident of 11 September 2001-19 September 2006 (2007).
[133]

Thus, while precedent literatures concentrated on revealing the causal relationship between factors or variables,
I suggest that the study should weight more intention on the analysis about constituted relationship of the phenomenon.
This approach may be followed by in-depth analysis about how the decision makers define and also label the context,
factors, and policy goals. It is also interesting if the study pay attention on analysis the mechanism of the whole policy
process in story telling style and mapping the interaction between relevant actors. In fact, Richard Snyder-a big name
scholar who paved the foreign policy study way to behavioral approach-also viewed this point in same direction. He
asserted that an objective of foreign policy analysis is to recreate the world as actual decision-maker view for describing
the state behavior accurately as it really happened (Viotti and Kauppi, 1999: 205-206).
From above, this kind of study can be carry on only with inductive epistemology than deductive one. It also
implicates with various research methods such as in-depth interviewing, participated observation, discussing in form of
focus group etc.
4) As the fact I mentioned, NESDB is the key actor of foreign policy process in Prayuth era, especially in the
task of compounding many specific plans form each ministry and creating key successive indicators. Those jobs required
not only the specific knowledge about plan management but also some degree of knowledge about other related
ministries tasks. Based on the point of knowledge management, the study of foreign policy process might be
supplemented by the analysis in the light of various knowledge management and leadership models: SECI model
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995); Phronesis Leadership (Nonaka and Toyama, 2007); the Concept of Ba (Nonaka and
Konno, 1998) are for instance.
5) Based on social constructivism theory, the policy outcomes indicators originated by NESDB implied reflect
what the national interests are in the perception of policy makers. The study can go further from this point of analysis by
framing the comparison between the national interests perceived by the governments eyes and national interests defined
by the thinkers in international relations theory circle. Moreover, the study about foreign policy outcomes, which
classified in the policy evaluation aspect, should be set on more acceptable and standard criteria. It may borrow some
theory, methodology, and model from the field of study that is strong on evaluation liked the public administration: the
concept of Results Based Management or RBM (Pothisuwan, 2010: 152-178) is for example.
Standing at a Cross Roads

To sum up, this article reviewed the previous Thailand foreign policy study approach. Instead of continual
dynamic, the Thailand foreign policy study has hold on traditional behavioralism as its mainstream approach.
Furthermore, many works under this umbrella were not match the actual policy process in real world. Those reach the
questions about validity and utility of the existed Thailand foreign policy body of knowledge at present. On the contrary,
Thailand public policy has more unremitting development. Despite its circle today is influenced by behavioral approach
such some methodologies as the quantitative research or the research on outcomes & impact evaluation, Thailand public
policy has developed the tools and methods in that shade of Behavioralism clung inseparably with the international
academic circle.
[134]

For this reason, this article concludes with some contest arguments for the current Thai foreign policy study
approach. Standing at the crossroad, the TFP study approach must chooses a way: either yielding to traditional approach
or seeking for alternative approach by primary surveying the various research methodologies in the kindred fields. Last
but not least, I do not know what kind of destination is on the alternative way. But I surely know that the new and
progressive goals definitely arent on the same old road which brings travelers back to the same old places, and we cant
only sit on the fence.
References
Allison, G. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: HarperCollins.
Anderson, J. 1979. Public Policy-Making. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Anumanrachathon, T. 2001. The Social Quantitative Research. Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai Pimp Suey.
Buakaew, K. 2007. Thailand Foreign Policy Towards China: Comparative Study of Thaksin Shinawatra
Government and Chuan Leekpai Government. Master Thesis, Master of Arts (Political Science),
Ramkhamhaeng University.
Callahan, P. et al. (eds). 1982. Describing Foreign Policy Behavior. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Campbell, D. 1998. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Chaothong, N. 2004. Thailand Foreign Policy in the Frame of ASEAN in 1990s. Master Thesis, Master of Political
Science, Thammasat University.
Charoensin-o-larn, C. 2001. The Critical Political Science. 2nd ed. Bangkok: Thammasat University Press.
Chernysh, K. 2010. Russian Foreign Policy Discourse During and After War: Representations of NATO. Master
Thesis, Master in International and European Relations, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Linkoping Universetet.
Chittick, W. (ed.). 1975. The Analysis of Foreign Policy Outputs. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Clunan, A. 2009. The Social Construction of Russias Resurgence: Aspirations, Identity, and Security Interests.
Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press.Kamolvej, T. 2010. The Public Policy in Public Governance
Context. in A. Tamronglak (ed.). Public Governance: Public Administration in C.21. Bangkok: Thammasat
University Press.
Deutsch, K. 1957. Mass Communications and the Loss of Freedom in National Decision-Making:A Possible Research Approach
to Interstate Conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution 1.
Dye, T. 1981. Understanding Public Policy. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Easton, D. 1960. The Political System. New York: Alfred A. Knoff.
__________. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Klongvithee, S, Plan and Policy
Analyst, the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB). Interviewing. 27
March 2015, Thammasat University (Tha Prachan Campus).
Frankel, J. 1959. Towards a Decision-Making Model in Foreign Policy. Political Studies 7.
[135]

Funston, J. 1998. Thai Foreign Policy: Seeking Influence. Southeast Asian Affairs.
Galariotis, I. 2008. The Theoretical and Empirical Application of Social Constructivism in EUs Foreign and
Security Policy. Cyprus Center of European and International Affairs, Paper No. 2008-04 (January).
Jackson, R and Sorensen, G. 2013. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. 5th ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Jervis, R. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Kroll, M. 1969. Policy and Administration. in F. Lyden, G. Shipman and M. Kroll (eds.). Policies and Organization.
New York: Meredith Corporation.
Kuehls, T. 1996. Beyond Sovereign Territory: The Space of Ecopolitics. MMinnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Laddawan Na Ayuddhaya, S. 1999. The Theories and Approaches of Public Administration. (n.p.).
Larsen, H. 1997. Foreign Policy and discourse analysis; France, Britain and Europe. London and New York:Routledge.
McGowan, P. and Shapiro, H. 1973. The Comparative Study of Foreign Policy: A Survey of Scientific Finding.
California: Sage Publications.
Naichit, I. 2001. Thailad Foreign Policy Towards ASEAN: Case Study of Chuan Leekpai Government (1997-2001).
Master Thesis, Master of Arts (Political Science), Ramkhamhaeng University.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics
of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. 1998. The Concept of Ba: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California
Management Review 40: 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. 2007. Strategic Management as Distributed Practical Wisdom (Phronesis). Industrial and
Corporate Change 16: 371-394.
Pakapaswiwat, S. 2007. Thailand Foreign Policy. in S. Sonsri (ed.). Southeast Asia: Foreign Policies after Economic
Crisis (1997-2006). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Phasuk, S. 1996. Thailand Foreign Policy: Study of Policy Decision Making of Chartchai Choonhavan Towards
Cambodia Problems (4 August 1988-23 February 1991). Master Thesis, Master of Political Science,
Chulalongkorn University.
Phuangkasen, C. n.d.. Thailand Relations and Foreign Policy (1980-Present). A document of subject PO640: Seminar
on International Relations of Thailand, Master of Arts Program in Political Science, Faculty of Political
Science, Thammasat University.
__________. 2003. The Critics of Thaksinanuwattra: The Foreign Policy Role of Thailand. Bangkok: Thammasat
University.
Pothisuwan, P. 2010. The Results Based Management. in A. Tamronglak (ed.). Public Governance: Public
Administration in C.21. Bangkok: Thammasat University Press.
Rathaboriraksa, B. 2006. Thailand Foreign Policy Towards Vietnam since General Chartchai Choonhavan
Government to Thaksin Shinawatra Government (1998-2004). Master Thesis, Master of Political Science,
[136]

Rosenau, J. 1969. Linkage Politics. New York: The Free Press.
Sabatier, P. (ed.). 1999. Theories of the policy process. Colorado: Westview.
__________ and Jenkins-Smith, H. (eds.). 1993. Policy Change and learning : An Advocacy Coalition Approach.
Colorado: Westview Press.
Samphaokaew, A. 2007. Thailand Political and Security Foreign Policy towards the United States of America Post
the incident of 11 September 2001-19 September 2006. Masters Thesis, Master of Political Science,
Sharkansky, I. 1970. Public Administration: Policy Making in Government Agencies. Chicago: Markham Publishing
Company.
__________. 1970. The Political Scientist and Policy Analysis: An Introduction, in Ira Sharkansjy (ed.). Policy
Analysis in Political Science. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
Siroros, P. 2012. The Dynamic of Public Policy: From State, Private Sector, to People. Bangkok: Political Science,
Snyder, R, Bruck, H. and Sapin, B. (eds.). 1962. Foreign Policy Decision-making: An Approach to the Study of
International Politics. New York: Free Press.
Sothanasathien, S. 2006. Principles and Theories of Social Science Quantitative Research. 3rd ed. Bangkok:
Prasitthipan publishing and printing.
Sullivan, M. 1976. International Relations: Theories and Evidence. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc..
Thamrongthanyawong, S. 1987. Public Policy Analysis. Bangkok: NIDA.
Thanapongsathorn, K. (ed.). 1979. The States Policy: What Why and How. Bangkok: Thammasat University Press.
Thongin, A. 2011. Religions and International Politics: the Theoretical Perspective and Reviewing some Aspects of
India Foreign Policy between 1998-2004. in Proceeding from the 11th National Conference on Political
Science and Public Administration. Volume 2. Mahasarakham: Abhichat kan pimp.
__________. 2011. Thailand Foreign Policy towards the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in case of the
Southern Border Provinces in Abhisit Vejjajiva Government. Masters Thesis, Master of Political Science,
Thepchatree, P. 2000. Global Policy Science: New Paradigm of Foreign Policy Study. The 38th Academic Conference
of Kasetsart University (Social Science). 1-4 February 2000.
__________. 2000. Thailand Foreign Policy: From Economic Crisis to New Century. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn
University Press.
Thorun, C. 2009. Explaining Change in Russian Foreign Policy: The Role of Ideas in Post-Soviet Russias Conduct
Towards the West. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Worathepputthipong, T. 1997. The Public Policy Making
and Analysis: Theories and Applies. Bangkok: NIDA.Youchat, S. 2006. Thailand Foreign Policy of Sarit
Thanarat Government towards Cambodia. Master Thesis, Master of Arts (History), Naresuan University.
Viotti, P. and Kauppi, M. 1999. International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. 3rd ed.
Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
[137]

Thai Foreign Policy Study Approach at The Crossroads

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Thai Foreign Policy Study Approach at The Crossroads

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1st ASEAN Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences

28-30 May 2015, Vientiane, Lao PDR.