Royal misrepresentation of rural livelihoods January 28th, 2008 by Andrew Walker 9 Comments Since the International Conference on Thai

i Studies, I have received a number of requests for the paper I presented on sufficiency economy. The paper was not included on the conference CD because I did not have time to submit it. So, here is the full text of my presentation. This is an edited version of a longer and much more detailed paper (which I am still writing). Regular readers of New Mandala will recognise much that is familiar! A good place to start is a fairy story that has been produced in Thailand. The lavishly illustrated story recounts the adventures of a little kingdom and its good king, who triumphs over a series of dark forces. One of the kings triumphs occurs during his many travels around the kingdom. In a far off place, the king came across a village that had almost no one living there. Where has everyone gone the king asked the small group of remaining villagers. The villagers answered their king: A demon of the dark called GREED came and visited and asked the people to leave the village. Most of the villagers abandoned the village and went to live in the City of Extravagance. The king thought for a moment and then gave the villagers a radiant seed. The villagers took the seed and planted it and it grew into the radiant tree that grew large branches and spread its radiance in all directions. The king told the villagers that the radiant tree is called SUFFICIENCY. The radiance of the tree shone to far off places, as far as the City of Extravagance. And many of those who saw it travelled back to return to their village. Since the 2006 coup Thailand has embarked on an unprecedented spate of enthusiasm for the royal theory commonly referred to as sufficiency economy. In order to draw a clear contrast with the so-called populist policies of the overthrown Thaksin government, the coup makers have devoted considerable attention to presenting their policies within a yellow package of royalist sufficiency. Of course, much of this is rhetorical. It is hard to see how a 60 percent increase in the military budget could be consistent with the sufficiency economy prescription of reasonableness, moderation and efficiency. Nevertheless, sufficiency economy has become an ideological tool that seeks to moderate rising rural expectations for economic and political inclusion. Whatever sufficiency economy thinkers may have to say about urban consumers or businessmen, it is towards rising rural expectations for economic and political inclusion that the sufficiency economy urgings of moderation are most clearly directed. This is ideologically linked to the active delegitimisation of rural voters electoral wishes in the post coup environment. Not only are rural people to be shielded (or excluded) from full and active participation in the national economy but their full and active participation in electoral democracy is delegitimised and the power of their elected representatives constrained. At the heart of sufficiency economys approach to rural Thailand is its three stage process of human development. This staged process of development builds on a foundation of self reliant agriculture. The first stage of human development involves the famous model farm, a much cited example of royal genius. In the model farm, land is allocated (in thirds) between fish ponds, rice cultivation and crops/fruit.

Of course, it would be foolhardy to take model farm too seriously but the emphasis on local agricultural production as a basis for household sufficiency is clear. But, the sufficiency economy advocates protest, this is not about a rejection of the market altogether. In the kings vision self-reliance did not mean isolation. The model farm was expected to create a surplus beyond household consumption, and this surplus could be exchanged on the local market. Stage 2 in the sufficiency economy model of development extends self reliance to the community level with local exchange of household surpluses to meet local needs. And, in turn, Stage 3 involves a higher level of external exchange to sell excess production and to obtain technology and resources. It should be clear, then, that sufficiency economy is not about economic isolation. Stages 2 and 3 involve increasing levels of external exchange. But, and this is crucially important: Before moving to another stage, there first had to be a firm foundation of self-reliance or else there was a strong chance of failure and loss of independence. The driving force for development had to come from within, based on accumulation of knowledge. So, the sufficiency economy approach proposes a hierarchical model of rural economy in which livelihoods are based on a broad foundation of local agricultural sufficiency. On top of this foundation local and non-local exchange involves the circulation of surpluses produced within the subsistence-oriented base. Local subsistence needs, not regional, national or international market demand, are the key drivers of production. The exchange of surplus is primarily a fortuitous by-product of the abundance of locally-oriented production. In this paper I argue that this sufficiency economy view seriously misrepresents the nature of rural livelihoods in contemporary Thailand. The view that agriculture can provide a firm foundation of self reliance is a highly selective and simplified interpretation of contemporary economic realities in rural Thailand. In fact, local agriculture frequently exists, and persists, on a foundation of external social and economic linkages. The notion that external linkages should only be developed once there is a foundation in local sufficiency is simply not consistent with the economically diversified livelihood strategies pursued by rural people in contemporary Thailand. It is an agrarian vision from the past. I will demonstrate this, quite briefly, by examining the local economy in the village of Baan Tiam - a lowland northern Thai village located about one hours drive from Chiang Mai. The first thing I want to examine is Baan Tiams demographic transformation. Over the past 50 years there has been sustained population growth in Baan Tiam. The village has expanded well beyond the original cluster of early settlers. This population growth has been associated with two key demographic processed. First, as in many other parts of rural Thailand, Baan Tiam has been a substantial exporter of population. Second, local population growth has been accompanied by an ongoing withdrawal from agricultural activity. This withdrawal has been driven both by agricultural resource constraints and expanding opportunities in other sectors.

These trends can be nicely illustrated in relation to the lineage of great-great-grandmother Pim, who was the mother of this woman. At present I have information on 87 of her descendants and their spouses. Of these almost exactly half are living outside the village and I have no doubt that there are considerably more, given that my genealogical information on these scattered descendants is much less complete. Among those still living in Baan Tiam the relatively small number still working in agricultural is striking. Grandmother Pim has 20 descendants currently resident in Baan Tiam who are of active working age. Of these only about 10 are still active farmers. And the situation among Pims Baan Tiam descendants is fairly representative of the situation in the entire village. In brief, an examination of Baan Tiams livelihood demography immediately raises important questions about the plausibility of an economic foundation in local sufficiency. There is no doubt that agriculture plays a very important role in Baan Tiams economy but rather than representing a foundation for local sufficiency it is itself underpinned by substantial out-migration and internal economic diversification. To put the matter bluntly: without these external livelihood options the internal competition for agricultural land in Baan Tiam would be extreme and large numbers of residents would be forced to adopt low yielding upland agriculture in the neighbouring national park in pursuit of the most basic subsistence livelihoods. The pressure on natural resources would be immense. If all of great-grandmother Pims descendants were to return to the village from the city of extravagance the royal tree of sufficiency would soon be cut down and sold to a furniture factory in Hang Dong. I will now move on to examine the main sectors of Baan Tiams economy. I will start with rice, and here I have provided a very rough indication of the size of the rice sector within the overall village economy. In relation to rice I will make five quick points. First, in a very broad sense Baan Tiam can be regarded as self sufficient when it comes to rice. My estimate of the rice subsistence requirement for the village as a whole is about 120 tonnes. Under good cultivation conditions the village produces about 140 tonnes of rice. But this broad impression of rice sufficiency is rather misleading. In fact only slightly over half of the villages households are engaged in rice cultivation (66 out of 126). The most common reason for non-rice cultivation is that the households do not own any agricultural land. The primary way in which non rice producing households obtain rice is via purchase either within the village (from rice surplus households) or outside the village (from rice traders in the nearby district centre). Some households obtain rice as payment for wage labour. So, while in a very general sense Baan Tiam can be regarded as being rice sufficient, the ways in which people access rice varies significantly. Images of local sufficiency, even in the limited sectors of the economy where they may be applicable, conceal local inequalities in access to resources and production. The key point is that many rural people obtain their most basic subsistence goods via market transactions. The next key point is that Baan Tiams broadly defined rice sufficiency is a result of considerable out-migration. If significantly more people had remained in the village there simply would not be enough locally produced rice for local consumption needs and dependence on external purchase would be substantially higher than it is now. 3

And rice sufficiency is a relatively recent phenomenon. Farmers report that rice yields have increased dramatically in recent years as a result of the introduction of improved varieties (especially Sanpatong 1). These varieties require relatively high inputs of fertiliser but the greatly increased returns easily justify the additional outlay. Of course, the sufficiency economy model of rural development does provide for the introduction of new technology in Stage 3 of its model. But according to sufficiency economy precepts this should follow on from a firm foundation in self reliance and local knowledge. In Baan Tiam, and many other parts of Thailand, improved rice yields are the result of ongoing external investment in variety improvement, irrigation infrastructure and agro-chemical input. And finally, despite its cultural importance, rice is only one component of the contemporary household economy. And, in fact, it is a relatively modest component. By my rough estimates the cash value of rice production makes less than 10 percent of average household incomes in northern Thailand. Even among those deemed to be living in absolute poverty rice production may represent only 20 or 30 percent of total income. I will now move on to cash crop production. In Baan Tiam some cash crops are grown in the wet season, along with rice, but cash crop production takes place mainly in the dry season in irrigated paddy fields. Here is a very quick view of cash crop production. In relation to cash crops I have four key points. First, cash crop cultivation represents a larger sector of the economy than rice cultivation. One indication of their importance is that the production of cash crops was nominated by 34 percent of households as their most important source of income. Second, Baan Tiam has been a long term cultivator of garlic, but in recent years there have been problems with yield. These problems are locally perceived to be caused by climatic variation and declining soil fertility. The free trade agreement with China in 2003 also had a short term effect on garlic prices and combined with a Thaksin government adjustment scheme this encouraged some farmers to move out of garlic production. So, farmers in Baan Tiam have faced many of the same environmental and economic anxieties that have contributed to the sufficiency economy philosophy. As at a national level, Baan Tiams farmers have had to deal with concerns about resource degradation, environmental change and external economic impacts. But their response has been quite different to that laid down by the sufficiency economy precepts. Rather than seek limit their engagement with external markets and focus on consolidating a subsistence oriented agricultural base, farmers have pursued new forms of engagement with agricultural commercialisation. Largely in response to concerns about garlic production, Baan Tiams farmers have adopted a range of new cash crops. Most of the new cash crops are grown under contract farming arrangements. Farmers regularly state that they have become interested in contract farming because they do not have to invest their own capital (which is usually borrowed). There is a strong sense in Baan Tiam that the advent of contract farming has introduced a wider range of agricultural alternatives into the village and these alternatives have been enhanced by some degree of revival in the yields and price of garlic. This is a system based on the active exploration of agricultural options introduced from outside the village. While many farmers ultimately adopt one of the major crops this adoption is 4

accompanied by careful observation and vigorous discussion of the numerous experiments that are going on at the margin. The relatively small areas devoted to minor crops may not be significant in terms of the overall local economy but they are sites of experimentation where agricultural alternatives are actively tested and evaluated. I will deal with the issue of agricultural wage labour very briefly. The key point is that about 30 percent of Baan Tiams households are heavily dependant on agricultural wage labour, primarily because they do not own any land. Most wage labour opportunities occur in the externally oriented cash cropping sector - opportunities for local income are much more limited in the subsistence oriented rice sector. And I will also deal with non-agricultural enterprise briefly. This is an important and diverse sector of Baan Tiams economy. I estimate that it represents something between 30 and 40 percent of the village economy. Key areas of enterprise and employment include construction, local handicrafts and small scale industry, government employment, and shop-keeping. A key point to underline here is that the government is a key source of direct employment and of finance for other economic activities that generate local employment. The Thaksins governments stimulus of this sector was a key reason for its electoral popularity in Baan Tiam. I will finish up by making three general points about sufficiency economy and its misrepresentation of rural livelihoods. And this image, from the Bangkok Post, of one of the queens sufficiency economy projects in southern Thailand is a useful backdrop for the discussion. First, the image of rural economy which underlies the sufficiency economy philosophy is not one that would stand up to any concerted ethnographic scrutiny in rural Thailand. It is an image in which external economic connections are, at best, peripheral and at worst highly disruptive. It is an image of rural livelihood in which subsistence oriented agriculture is seen as potentially providing a firm foundation for household livelihood and in which local subsistence needs are, or should be, the primary driver of economic activity. In this paper I have sought to paint a rather different picture of rural economy. The data from Baan Tiam indicate that subsistence-oriented agriculture is just one component of a diverse and multifaceted economy. And it is a relatively small component. My second key point is that the sufficiency economy prescriptions for rural development are inappropriate and disempowering. Perhaps the best outcome is that sufficiency economy will largely be ignored except as a promotional strategy for rural development programs. In the recent election Matchimathipatais sufficiency economy policy for 9 million fish ponds, based on the kings vision of the model farm, didnt seem to capture much electoral interest. They won seven out of 480 seats. But the possibility that sufficiency economy principles may shape future rural development policy cannot be too readily dismissed, especially given the current force of royalist thinking. What is of most concern is the notion that local subsistence-oriented agriculture can act as a foundation for rural livelihoods and that this foundation should be firmly established before moving on to the later stages of development (local exchange and then limited external exchange). In relation to Baan Tiam I have already noted the very limited sense in which the subsistence agricultural sector could be seen as providing some basis for local sufficiency in rice. Making this quite modest part of the local economy a primary focus for rural development would be to condemn many rural households to a sector of the economy in which the potential for livelihood transformation is very constrained. A more realistic development standpoint would be 5

too see the foundation for local livelihood as lying in a diverse and spatially dispersed package of agricultural and non-agricultural pursuits. Local economic resilience lies in diversity, not in a narrowing of focus to subsistence production and locally oriented exchange. Strengthening this diverse economic foundation involves a multi-faceted package of agricultural extension, enterprise development, infrastructure investment and, probably most importantly, high quality primary and secondary education. Of course, there is considerable potential for improving agricultural productivity and in enhancing subsistence security (especially for these most vulnerable farmers who cultivate subsistence crops on marginal lands). But enhancing local livelihoods will necessarily involve both supporting the production of higher value commercial crops and supporting the ongoing movement of household labour and resources into nonagricultural pursuits. But perhaps the current preoccupation with sufficiency economy does not really reflect a concern with rural development at all. It is important to remember that one of the key ideological projects of the regime in post-coup Thailand has been to argue that the Thaksin governments electoral mandate was illegitimate because it had been bought from an unsophisticated and easily manipulated electorate. The military and judicial overthrow of an elected government is justified on the basis that the Thai electorate, and especially the rural electorate, is in no position to make rational political decisions. Rural voters, we are consistently told, are vulnerable to the lure of vote buying and the political pressures of local strongmen. What is required is a political system in which electoral power is tempered by the guiding hand of the good men in the judiciary and the bureaucracy. The sufficiency economy philosophy serves this ideological project very well. Its clear message is that the appropriate role for the rural population is in localised and modest pursuits. Matters of regional and national economy are for others to take care of. Underlying the sufficiency economy approach is the message that when rural people become involved in these broader economic pursuits they readily breach the moral regulations of reasonableness, moderation and immunity. Their journeys to the city are not attempts to improve their livelihoods but morally dubious pursuits of extravagance. In the same way votes cast for Thaksin do not reflect local political judgement but are the readily mobilised results of financial inducement. In this elite vision of electoral participation the problem lies in money politics - the demon of greed. The solution lies in the royally bestowed tree of local sufficiency. Sango Mahanty // Jan 29, 2008 at 4:03 pm Good paper Andrew. Relating the sufficiency economy concept back to Baan Thiam gives a richness to your analysis on what the problems are with the concept. Is it possible though that the idea is being interpreted and used diversely at the local level? We earlier discussed (not on this blog) the case of a CBO in Kanchanaburi whose idea of sufficiency economy seems to be strongly centred around improving financial literacy and planning in village households as well as enterprise development. Subsistence agriculture was a tiny player in the local sufficiency economy vision in this drought prone part of Kanchanaburi. I wonder if the grand plan of sufficiency economy (as can so often be the case with grand plans) is starting to take on different meanings for different people? 3 buddhism adjunkt Cambodian Economic News: Ive been gone a long time roundup // Jan 30, 2008 at 4:34 am 6

[] Not anymore. As an article I read today concluded, in the voice of a Phnom Penh TukTuk driver, Now the war in Cambodia is over land. The always-exciting work of Andrew Walker (of New Mandala) includes the just-posted piece on the Thai Royal misrepresentations of rural livelihoods has much of relevance to broader regional discussions, and has graciously put the full text of his presentation on this topic. [] 4 Thorn // Feb 1, 2008 at 7:17 am This is the must-read paper for Thai economic students. However, Im still curious about the last 30-40 percent share of non-agricultural enterprise. What sort of government employment are there in this share? Is it employment related to government administrative unit (such as TAO)? And what sort of government spending that support these agricultural enterprises? Do you mean OTOP? 5 Andrew Walker // Feb 1, 2008 at 7:38 am Thanks for your comment Thorn. Here is a more complete discussion of the non-agricultural enterprise sector with the Baan Tiam economy. I am still working on this paper and will be adding more detail over the next few weeks. It is worth emphasising the crucial point that out of Baan Tiams 126 households about 43 percent are not engaged in independent farming. Some of these derive income from working as wage labourers, primarily in the cash crop agricultural sector. But there is also substantial employment outside the agricultural sector. In the livelihood survey I undertook in 2003 28 percent of households indicated that non-agricultural employment was their most important course of income. An additional 8 percent were supported by shopkeeping and local handicraft/industry (3 percent) supported relatively few households. These figures were broadly corroborated by a later survey (2006) in which households were asked if they earn more from cash crops or wages: 61 percent nominated wages (and another 7 percent said their income from wages and cash crops was roughly equal). This latter survey sought to disaggregate the sources of wage income in a little more detail. 31 percent of those surveyed nominated agricultural wage labour as their most important source of cash income. The second most important was government employment with 27 percent. The importance of this government sector was underlined by the additional 9 percent who nominated community projects (most of which are heavily dependant on direct government grants) as their most important source of cash income. Other key sources were local business activity (18 percent) and non-agricultural wage labour (10 percent). Construction is a key sector in which Baan Tiam residents gain business income and wage-labour employment. In local perceptions construction is one of the key markers of development. Over the past few years Baan Tiam has witnessed an array of construction projects: the paving of village roads; a handicrafts centre (now used to house the community shop); a large concrete pavilion for the village territorial spirit; improvements to the temple, including an elaborate bell tower; a new water supply system; a new irrigation weir; two bridges; a community rice mill; and several large private houses. A similar array of projects is evident in the surrounding villages. These various construction projects are predominarly funded by government grants, donations from sponsors living outside the village and private investment in housing (usually a result of lucrative salaried employment). Baan Tiams residents are involved in these construction projects 7

in various ways. Most directly, and profitably, there are two local contractor resident in the village. One is a highly successful businessman who has won a steady supply of construction work from the local council (tesaban), no doubt linked to the fact that his father in law is the local mayor. Another contractor focuses on the design and construction of private residences both within Baan Tiam and the district more generally. There is also another prominent contractor within the district who has close links with Baan Tiam, having acquired significant land holdings there. Each of these contractors employs Baan Tiam residents to work on their various construction projects. Construction work usually pays considerably more than wage labour in the agricultural sector especially for those undertaking skilled activities (such as carpentry or bricklaying). The government sector provides employment in several different ways. First there are those who hold official and salaried positions. Most prominent is the mayor and deputy mayor of the local municipal council both of who are resident in Baan Tiam. Several other residents also hold professional positions with the district or provincial administration. Others hold salaried positions in government-run services such as the district hospital or the district and local schools and in government departments, particularly the forestry department and the national park administration. Less skilled employment is also available in local agricultural development projects (especially the nearby Royal Project development centre) and in re-forestation projects run by watershed management units. The government sector also provides substantial financial support for an array of community projects that also provide various sources of employment and income. There is an active commercial sector within Baan Tiam. There are seven shops; two small restaurants; two small petrol stations; several crop traders and several stall holders in the nearby district market. The shops sell a wide array of basic consumer durables and some locally produced fresh vegetables. Much of their custom is from Baan Tiam, but some of the shops have an active trade with residents of an upland Karen village that is located in the national park about 10 kilometres to the east of Baan Tiam. And there are several very small scale enterprises. These include one household producing fried bananas; another producing steamed bamboo shoots; and several producing furniture and other forms of woodwork. There is an active underground trade in illegally cut timber from the nearby national park. Several households are involved in felling trees, milling the timber and selling the high value planks to builders and furniture producers. fall // Feb 1, 2008 at 1:26 pm Perhaps the best outcome is that sufficiency economy will largely be ignored except as a promotional strategy for rural development programs. I think this is the key quote for the paper. The core problem that sufficiency economy try to tackle seem to be rural worker migration (to urban). But the sufficiency economy seem to take it the wrong way. China is a good example of effect on increasing rural population. May be the problem should be address in the exact opposite, like Japan regional crop variation. Instead of encouraging model farmland and government left villager alone. Encourage farmer to produce only best yield crop in the area and government promote promotion, transport, and sales.

Sufficiency economy and human development

In a move that some commentators will find rather bewildering the UNDPs 2007 Human Development Report for Thailand provides a strong endorsement of the sufficiency economy approach. The report was launched yesterday and is available here. The UNDP website for Thailand reports: Thailands Sufficiency Economy holds the key for reducing poverty, combating corruption, and buffering the country against financial crises, according to a timely report launched today in Bangkok. Sufficiency Economy and Human Development demystifies this economic philosophy and shows how its practical applications in business, politics, education, farming, and even everyday conduct have a wide global relevance. There is much to read in this report and when I have some time to digest it I will provide some further posts. For now, just one quick comment. On initial inspection there does seem to be an inverse relationship between adherence to the principles of sufficiency economy and a positive performance on UNDPs Human Achievement Index. The top two performers, Phuket and Bangkok, are hardly paragons of sufficiency economy. Advocates of sufficiency economy are much more likely to find what they are looking for in two lowest ranked provinces: Tak and Mae Hong Son. Note that 9 of the 10 lowest ranked provinces are in the north and the northeast. Tags: Publications Sufficiency Economy Thailand

5 responses so far

1 New Mandala Sufficiency economy = poverty? // Jan 10, 2007 at 9:41 pm [] In my post of earlier today I discussed the emphasis placed in Thailands 2007 Human Development Report on sufficiency economy. As I work through the report I will provide a series of short posts (as time permits) on some of its key issues. In this post I focus on Chapter 1 in which the key human development data are presented. []

2 Republican // Jan 10, 2007 at 9:45 pm Not quite sure why it is bewildering that the report should give a strong endorsement of self-sufficiency theory: (i) Copyright 2007: well that just about says it all. But for those commentators who may still be in doubt: (ii) As it is the Kings theory (I hesitate to give it that honour)any criticism of it would by definition count as an act of lese majeste, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison. Strange they didnt mention that in the report. If one had the choice of criticising the Kings theory, thereby risking ones professional position, at best, and at worst a jail term, or collecting what must have been a very nice UN pay cheque, it is not

difficult to guess what most of the contributors choice would be. Looks nice on the CV too. (iii) The report is endorsed by PM Surayudh, the former privy councillor and Kings nominee for the prime ministership after the royalist-military coup detat. Hes hardly going to endorse a report critical of his master. (iv) As the Acknowledgements points out, the report was guided by an Advisory Panel, chaired by H.E. Kasem Watanachai, Privy Councilor, and co-chaired by H.E. Dr. Chirayu Israngkun Na Ayuthaya, Director General of the Bureau of the Crown Property, which is made up of a whos who of network monarchy - Crown Property Bureau people, Royal Project people, etc. Contributors also include Sumet Tantivejakul, Secretary-General, of the monarchys Chaipattana Foundation and one of the leading anti-Thaksin campaigners. I mean, this is the absurdity that is Thailand in todays modern dark ages; the DG of one of the largest business conglomerates in the country singing the praises of selfsufficiency. The King waxes lyrical about the virtues of his theory while members of his own extended family travel around the world virtually every week, and then force their Thai subjects to watch their holiday movies on the 8pm TV news. This is the stuff of Marie Antoinette. And the reason no-one kicks up a fuss (openly)? lese majeste, and since September 19, the little matter of living under a royalist-military dictatorship. But what is worse than that is how the UNDP can prostitute itself by lending its brand to the Thai King, who has just endorsed the overthrow of a government elected overwhelmingly by his own people, and who is now backing an increasingly ruthless military dictatorship. Funny the report didnt mention that either. How can we explain this? Like so many idiot farang expats who get used by the Thai phu yais (and get paid very well for it!) to give their endorsement (as Western experts) to projects which in their own countries would be crucified in the media? (No doubt they are all very much in love with Thai culture, and the love is surely reciprocal). Or worse than that, they actually believe that it is OK for dictatorships to treat their people in this way? As Ive said before, if self-sufficiency is a theory that you are going to force upon the Thai people then let there be an open debate about it, get rid of lese majeste, and apply the principles of reasoned, vigorous debate. Let the world see just who is really behind the industry of producing the discourse of self-sufficiency, and whose interests this discourse is really protecting.

3 Jon Fernquest // Jan 10, 2007 at 11:24 pm Thailand is probably a good example for other countries of what it is feasible to achieve, however When I saw Chiang Rai rank so low in so many categories I couldnt help but think of all those conversations in Burmese I had with the literal ***army of Burmese workers*** that built Thailands newest university in Chiang Rai. Wages are near zero for Thais in Mae Sai unless they have a little store selling things to tourists. 10

There is a **fundamental disconnect between appearance and reality**. I remember the way were given a list of things to say to the accreditation board that visited the university. ***I have the utmost respect for His Majesty the King*** but not those who use the hallowed institutions of royalty to build up their own absolute power which is probably why the truth so often remains concealed under the veneer of slick brochures. The university I worked at had an annual Tham Hua ceremony where all the staff grudingly had bowed and reaffirmed their loyalty to the **president of the university** who is not royalty. This is too much. This is right out of the Burmese chronicles that I translate and publish at the University of London: http://web.soas.ac.uk/burma/bulletin.htm Of course, by even pointing this out I could get sued for defamation (or deported because I am a foreigner) fairly obvious reasons why the truth never gets out.

4 New Mandala A royal project // Jan 12, 2007 at 11:02 pm [] The second chapter of the report is primarily a promotional piece for the sufficiency economy approach. As at least one New Mandala reader has commented it is surprising that an international agency such as UNDP has been willing to endorse the promotion of an approach that in recent months has been politically mobilised to help justify the military overthrow of an elected government. Some explanation from UNDP is surely called for. []

5 Ananth // Jan 31, 2007 at 4:15 am Actually this economic approach is very simple. fairly speaking, the King proposed it during the economic crisis years ago. And it is so true that one of main causes here was the Thai ambition to be a new NIC. But in fact Thailand was so weak in economic infrastructure, as lots of economists explained for long time. The center of his idea is just to be prepared when we have to go for some new change and first we have to fill our stomach first. Do not too ambitious. And be highly cautioned for changes in the future.

In-sufficient analysis January 12th, 2007 by Andrew Walker 8 Comments

This is my fourth post on Thailands 2007 Human Development Report. It discusses chapter 3, Sufficiency economy in action. This chapter is another public relations piece for the sufficiency economy approach. It discusses a range of broadly defined sufficiency economy initiatives at local, corporate and national levels. The main case study discussed is the Inpaeng Network in northeast Thailand. The activities are described in terms of the three-stage model of local development discussed in my previous post. Network members started by turning away from cash cropping to local subsistence production; they then developed a range of external economic relations based on the clever identification, processing and marketing of local products. The result is a sufficiency success story: 11

The communities of the Inpaeng Network are far from being isolated from the outside world and the pressures of globalization. Almost every household has a TV, and over half have a mobile phone. More and more children go to secondary schools in town and are exposed to the consumerist fashion of the age. The decision to retreat from mono-cash-cropping almost a generation ago was not a withdrawal from the world. Through their connections to markets, government agencies, universities, other networks and even Japanese schools, they are much more broadly and deeply involved in the outside world than before that first decision. This is encouraging. But I must confess to some lingering scepticism. The chapter does document some of the challenges facing the Inpaeng Network but it is primarily a public relations piece. There is no attempt at any rigorous analysis of, for example, the impact of Network activities on household budgets; the extent to which Network participants are supported by household members working in urban areas; the extent to which network activities are dependant on external grants and other forms of financial support; and the relative role of Network activities in local livelihoods. Nor, surprisingly, is there any consideration of how villages active in the Network perform in relation to the UNDPs human development indicators. In other words, we are provided with some very nice imagery but no concerted attempt to seriously evaluate the Network in terms of sufficiency principles or its social impact in terms of human development. New Mandala would love to hear from any readers who can provide any further insights into the Networks activities and their impacts on local livelihoods. The rest of the chapter covers a range of different issues. Let me deal with some of them briefly. First, there is a discussion of various royal initiatives that have implemented sufficiency economy principles in relation to environmental management. Vetiver grass (used extensively in an attempt to combat erosion) gets a mention with no consideration at all of its negative impacts on local farming systems. Second, there is discussion of various corporate initiatives in relation to sufficiency economy. Siam Cement (in which the Crown Property is a major shareholder) will appreciate the publicity and strong endorsement. There is a lot of good common sense advice about how principles of moderation and integrity can improve business performance. Interestingly, a corporate Sufficiency Alignment Index is proposed. As I stated in a previous post, it would be interesting if indices could be developed for other aspects of sufficiency economy and some consideration given to how these correlate with other aspects of human development. Third, there is some discussion of how sufficiency economy may inform a more conservative approach to national economic management. Some of the specific policies of the Thaksin government are briefly considered. The popularity of the village fund is acknowledged, but it is suggested that the scheme should be re-designed to put greater emphasis on savings. The 30 baht health care scheme is also acknowledged as making a major contribution to human development and lifting more people above the poverty line than any other single government scheme but it fails on sufficiency economy criteria for not being built on firm foundations: the planning and implementation lacked moderation and insight. Interestingly the chapter says nothing substantial about what sufficiency economy may have to say about the great disparities in access to government services that are documented in chapter 1 of the Human Development Report. Community self reliance is all very well, but it doesnt address the issue that some people have much greater government support than others! 12

Finally, there are some general comments about how sufficiency economy can inform national development strategy and education. In brief, the chapter provides an interesting picture of sufficiency economys various dimensions but makes very little attempt to critically evaluate initiatives in terms of their adherence to sufficiency economy principles or their contribution to human development. Tags: Publications Sufficiency Economy Thailand

8 responses so far

1 anon // Jan 12, 2007 at 3:54 pm What were you expecting - refereed journal-level analysis? Chris Baker isn\t really an academic (he\s an \independent research\, which means that no university will give him tenure), and the Thailand Human Development Report is a palace puff piece to justify the Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award that Kofi Annan gave to the King. Sounds impressive, doesn\t it? Until you ask who else has received this award. And the answer is: nobody. It\s an award created specifically for the king.

2 nganadeeleg // Jan 12, 2007 at 4:12 pm Why dont you get personal, anon?

3 Jon Fernquest // Jan 12, 2007 at 9:41 pm The 30 baht health care schemelacked moderation and insight. I witnessed someone in a coma denied oxygen necessary for their continued life unless a lot more than 30 baht was forthcoming. Here, as always, transparency is the issue: 30 baht for what?

4 polo // Jan 13, 2007 at 6:19 am I think Bakers work qualifies him as a public acadeic or something perhaps we need a real term to characterize all scholars, including those not tied to any academy. But anyway, I think there are more questions to be asked about Inpaeng too, before comparing its success with other villages. Here are some: 1. What is the strength of land ownership and tenure there? What is the average family farm size? 2. How much input came from outside with the region chosen as a demonstration model? 3. How are lands being divided among subsequent generations? 13

4. How much of the mobile phones and TVs and other modcons are paid for by family working in the cities that is, what is the role of money transferred inward? 5. With this approach how to you produce people educated enough to run the central bank?

5 Jon Fernquest // Jan 13, 2007 at 4:27 pm One obvious way to boost regional self-sufficiency is to move more food processing upstream to the provincial level. I could see local entrepreneurs who have the requisite technical skills in food science, e.g.: http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/entrepreneurship/abalone_farming_a_new_fo od_fro.php doing at a local level essentially what CP Foods does at a national level for export: http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/international_trade/cp_foods_export_strategie s_in.php Certain fields in Thai universities like Food Science are more important than in western universities. But the pioneering abalone entrepreneur in the article above was trained as a vet, so you could argue that the more general rigorous training of the natural sciences is very pertinent. The importance of the fundamental and more universal subjects that have been around for ages like mathematics is underrated. The university I worked at had no math department but it did have a trendy cosmetic science department, more an artifact of marketing than knowledge per se. IMHO instead of taking His Majesty the Kings words and try to create some monolithic new all-encompassing subject out of it, if people just **thought good and hard** for a couple of minutes each day, perhaps before breakfast, **about what Paw Piang actually means** and then practiced it with perseverance in their own daily lives (albeit it is difficult to do that in the hustle bustle of Bangkok) that would be of much more value than big theories and a course. One of the most disheartening things about being a teacher was seeing all the lecture notes strewn about on the ground outside the examination room after the final exam. I still have the lecture notes from when I was a graduate student at Stanford 20 years ago. Three weeks ago the government was claiming that they didnt know how to activate the sufficiency economy philosophy in policy. Three weeks later they have grandiose all encompassing ideas and policies. They should get a clue. The sufficiency economy is already there. Rural people can go down to a bookstore learn how to fish farm in their backyard. Ask some neighbors for some advice and presto, enough cash to eat everyday. Pak Bung, it grows wild by the side of the road! People just need to learn to use what they already have better!

6 New Mandala Sufficiency going forward, diversity going backward // Jan 16, 2007 at 9:11 pm [] This is my final comment on the UNDPs 2007 Thailand Human Development Report (for my previous post see here). My comments in this post focus on the final 14

chapter (Sufficiency going forward) which explores the ways in which the sufficiency economy approach can help to change the direction of thinking and practice on development in Thailand. []

7 Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense // Nov 7, 2007 at 6:49 am [] New Mandala readers may recall my commentary on the UNDPs 2007 Human Development Report for Thailand. Kevin Hewison has also written a []

8 Historicus // Nov 7, 2007 at 1:19 pm One obvious way to boost regional self-sufficiency is to move more food processing upstream to the provincial level. I could see local entrepreneurs who have the requisite technical skills in food science,doing at a local level essentially what CP Foods does at a national level for export. Wasnt that what OTOP was about?

15

Sufficiency economy = poverty? January 10th, 2007 by Andrew Walker 24 Comments

In my post of earlier today I discussed the emphasis placed in Thailands 2007 Human Development Report on sufficiency economy. As I work through the report I will provide a series of posts (as time permits) on some of its key issues. In this post I focus on Chapter 1 in which the key human development data are presented. The message of this chapter is straightforward: Thailand has made remarkable progress in relation to human development but this progress has not benefited everyone equally. One indicator of the progress is the reduction in poverty from 38 percent in 1990 to 11 percent in 2004. The report notes that Thailand is expected to meet most or all of the Millennium Development Goals in advance of the 2015 target. But the inequalities are stark. The report provides a ranking of Thailands 76 provinces in terms of their Human Achievement Index (HAI) Score. This HAI score provides a summary of a wide range of human development indicators relating to health, education, income, housing, community, communications and participation. Phuket rates the highest, followed by Bangkok. Of the other 10 top-ranked provinces five are in the central region. By contrast, Mae Hong Son in the far north ranks at the bottom. Eight of the bottom 10 provinces are in the North or Northeast. Two are in the South. In brief: People in Bangkok, Bangkok Vicinity and other regional growth areas enjoy higher levels of human development than people in more isolated provinces. The North and the Northeast, as well as a few provinces in the deep South, are placed at much lower levels. The report provides data and insights on various dimensions of this inequality. Compared to those in Bangkok people in the Northeast and North are more likely to be disabled and more likely to report physical illness but they have much lower access to health services; they also have lower access to education; they have lower standards of housing and living environment; lower access to mobile phones and the internet; and they are much more likely to be living in poverty. In brief the report provides a compelling account of Thailands regional inequality. This chapter of the Human Development Report makes almost no mention at all of the sufficiency economy approach. This is unfortunate. It would have been very interesting if the authors had made some attempt to map some key indicators of sufficiency economy and see how these correlate with the Human Achievement Index. As I said in my previous post, superficial inspection suggests that there may be an inverse relationship between sufficiency economy and human development. To put it bluntly, I suspect Mae Hong Son (at the bottom of the HAI table) contains many more people living a sufficiency lifestyle than the high-ranking Bangkok or Phuket. What could be some useful indicators of sufficiency economy? Perhaps the percentage of a provinces agricultural land devoted to subsistence crops. Or the percentage of provincial income derived from local production. Or the proportion of household income spent on basic consumption. All these may be possible proxy indicators for the presence or otherwise of sufficiency economy. Another may be the level of household debt, given that sufficiency economy is often presented as an antidote to debt-fuelled pursuit of economic expansion. Data on household debt (by province) is available in the Human Development Report (Table All4). 16

Taking the level of household debt by province as a very rough proxy for sufficiency economy (lower debt indicates more sufficiency economy) I thought it would be interesting to see how this correlates with the overall HAI rankings. I plotted the relationship in this graph (click it for a larger image):

The horizontal axis shows the level of household debt by province. Bangkoks average debt is 351,000 while Mae Hong Sons is 83,112. The vertical axis indicates the HAI ranking those low on the axis rate low on the HAI (Mae Hong Son rates 76) while those high on the axis rate high on the HAI (Bangkok rates 2). The result is interesting, though not compelling. It does suggest that there is some tendency for higher levels of debt to correspond with higher HAI rankings. Very generally, the less human developed provinces tend to have lower debt levels. And the more human developed provinces have higher debt levels. In other words, based on this very rough and limited calculation there is some suggestion that higher levels of sufficiency economy (such as in Mae Hong Son) correlate to some extent with lower levels of human development. Interesting. And surely worth further investigation. Before Thailand goes too far down the sufficiency economy path it may be worth investigating the current distribution of key features of sufficiency economy and how they relate to other key measures of human development. Tags: Publications Sufficiency Economy Thailand

24 responses so far

1 nganadeeleg // Jan 11, 2007 at 12:02 am Lies, damn lies, and statistics! If you taking gross debt, without reference to underlying assets, and income levels, then your analysis is meaningless in terms of the sufficiency economy. 17

A higher gross debt could still fit within the sufficiency model if that household also had high asset and income levels. If the Household Debt axis in the above graph was actually Household Debt as a percentage of Assets or Income, then the graph would be more meaningful in analysing the sufficiency theory. Andrew, it sounds like you have a problem with the sufficiency theory. Here is a translation of the Kings 1998 speech which includes clarification of what he is talking about: http://www.kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/1998/1204.en.html In the light of that clarification, what ecactly are your concerns with the theory?

2 nganadeeleg // Jan 11, 2007 at 12:07 am Should say exactly not ecactly in last sentence of my post above. Also missing the word are after you in the second sentence. No edit capability so I must remember to check more carefully before I click submit

3 Vichai N. // Jan 11, 2007 at 12:55 am Still at it Andrew Walker? Trying with all your nonsense to equate HMKs Sufficiency Economy to poverty? Either you are being stupid or you are merely being malicious. Or your master has given you instructed to pursue this nonsense or you wont get paid. I already told you the first time I visited this forum when you made that stupid conclusion Andrew that it is too ridiculous to qualify as a blatant lie. I have not changed my mind a bit.

4 jeplang // Jan 11, 2007 at 2:19 am I will put my money on there being no correlation between the 2 variables;not with an r squared of 0.18,indicating 82% of the variance is NOT explained by the regression line . [A minor point-I thought R squared was reserved for non-linear regression.] If the 95% confidence intervals had been drawn ,or better still ,the prediction intervals,,the straight line could have been drawn virtually anywhere except horizontally-slight exaggeration ,I know. Even after reading the Kings speech referred to by nganadeeleg ,Im still unsure what sufficiency economy means. Does it,in part,mean ways and means of reducing poverty? This is the only speech of the King I have read,and I have been surprised ,enlightened and also dismayed,perhaps saddened would be a better word.And I think it is wise not to elaborate.

18

5 anon // Jan 11, 2007 at 5:16 am You pencil-necked pin-headed development geeks think that happiness can only be measured with numbers. Realize that the self-sufficiency economy isnt about numbers and wealth - its about goodness and dignity. Without this fundamental understanding, Thailand will still produce another generation of Thaksins.

6 Bangkok Pundit // Jan 11, 2007 at 5:53 am Thank you Nganadeeled for the link. I find the following interesting: This sufficiency means to have enough to live on. Sufficiency means to lead a reasonably comfortable life, without excess, or overindulgence in luxury, but enough. Some things may seem to be extravagant, but if it brings happiness, it is permissible as long as it is within the means of the individual. This is another interpretation of the sufficiency economy or system. So if Surayuds couple of a million baht in foreign watches brings him happiness it is ok. Now, if I understand correctly, if I have 10 billion baht and want to buy myself a fleet of Ferraris, it is ok within the sufficiency economy system as long as it is makes me happy and is within my means of the individual (I dont borrow excessively?). I dont really see any limits to this sufficiency economy idea,* but then again as I have previously stated I dont really see sufficiency economy meaning anything apart from being a rhetorical device. Are there any examples of people who have not been in accordance with the sufficiency economy. Surely, Thaksin who brought debt down from around 57% of GDP to 41% of GDP didnt break the sufficiency economy idea. *How does one determine whether money borrowed is within the means of an individual? Is the government going to do this or just banks in accordance with normal lending criteria? If banks, what is going to change then?

7 Jon Fernquest // Jan 11, 2007 at 6:23 am Case studies would be more useful than a bunch of statistics. Look at newspapers on Japanese funded Easy Buy in which the debtor can opt not to pay and the debt grows and grows. or the motorcycle dealerships that rake in cash by selling easily on credit in provincial villages and then repossessing with the help of the local mafia. This all has nothing to do with His Majesty the King who sets an example. Of course some people wont follow it. But it is a lot better than places that have no example at all like Burma. the less human developed provinces tend to have lower debt levels. 19

Here is another place where appearance does not meet reality. Have you ever heard of Len Hun ? There are extensive informal debt networks. I doubt whether they enter the stats. Many years ago I saw IQ test results that reported a substantial fraction of northerners were mental retarded. The test was given in central Thai and there are a lot of hill tribes and Kham Meuang speakers. Statistical studies like this should be taken with a grain of salt.

8 nganadeeleg // Jan 11, 2007 at 9:43 am Unfortunately, there is a tendency to treat the Kings ideas as some sort of prescriptive formula for the economy. It is easier for critics of the junta or the palace system to score points if the sufficiency economy is seen to be prescriptive/formulatic, and it appears the junta is playing right into their hands. I see the sufficiency economy theory as guidance from HMK for people to think about the way they live, and to apply some moderation in their business and personal activities. (I also agree with comment #5 above by anon - very well said) Pundit: Im sure we can all find examples of excesses that appear to show particular individuals are not practising sufficiency economy. An alternative way of looking at it would be like followers of the Buddhist religion - they all believe in the religions ideals, but various individuals are further along the Buddhist path than others. Some (or most) may never get there in this lifetime, but they can still be on the path to enlightenment.

9 nganadeeleg // Jan 11, 2007 at 10:28 am This overview in The Nation by Dr Chris Baker might also be helpful in understanding the thinking behind sufficiency economy: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/11/opinion/opinion_30023814.php (Dr Chris Baker is the principal writer and editor of the United Nations Development Programmes Thailand Human Development Report 2007: Sufficiency Economy and Human Development)

10 anon // Jan 11, 2007 at 10:41 am nganadeeleg, dont you know sarcasm when you see it? I was trying to say that sufficiency economy is like ariyasaj 4 - it sounds nice and is undoubtedly true. But it shouldnt be used as the basis for ruling a populace or managing an economy.

11 Bangkok Pundit // Jan 11, 2007 at 12:42 pm 20

It is easier for critics of the junta or the palace system to score points if the sufficiency economy is seen to be prescriptive/formulatic, and it appears the junta is playing right into their hands. I see the sufficiency economy theory as guidance from HMK for people to think about the way they live, and to apply some moderation in their business and personal activities. Your talk of the junta and the Surayud government and its use of sufficiency economy is what concerns me. Any policy of Thaksins they dont like is labelled as not being in accordance with sufficiency economy, but then relabelled and extra money spent money and suddenly it is in accordance with sufficiency economy. Crispin touched on this in October when he said: There is a definite risk that Thai bureaucrats may overplay the sufficiency concept in expression of their loyalty and affection for the monarch. There is a concurrent risk that the royal philosophy will be twisted by less scrupulous government officials as an opportunity to abuse their authority for rent-seeking and extortion, particularly among foreign-invested concerns. Thai TV is now riddled with vague references to sufficiency economy (ie doing x is not in accordance with sufficiency economy). The principle behind sufficiency economy of living within one means is so vague that it is easily subject to abuse. The new measures of capital controls and amendments to the Foreign Business Act have one large beneficiary rich Thais, particularly those with local monopolies. The second problem I have with sufficiency economy is, as I believe Republican pointed out in another post, that analysing the concept is very difficult because of lese majeste. You cant criticise the concept only in Thai society without risking bringing trouble to yourself. Finally, HM the King is not just suggesting a model on how people should live their personal lives, it is about changing the economy with fewer exports and an economy which is 25% self-sufficient. btw, HM the King has given one of few explanations I have seen of the share game which is extremely prevalent in Thai society. I lived in Thailand a while before I heard anything about this.

12 Srithanonchai // Jan 11, 2007 at 2:34 pm In an article in todays The Nation, Chris Baker refers to himself as the main writer and editor of the UNDPs sufficiency economy report. The link is http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/11/opinion/opinion_30023814.php His article makes one wonder whether there are actually two Chris Bakers in Bangkok.

13 anon // Jan 11, 2007 at 4:13 pm

21

The Kings in-depth knowledge of share schemes is probably due to his wifes involvement in Mae Chamoys share scheme. But the King is a brilliant man, and his family didnt loose a single Baht in that scandal. He is truly a genius!

14 Vichai N. // Jan 11, 2007 at 9:06 pm Anon why dont you go ahead and complete your innuendos about Mae Chamoy and the King. If you dont I am certain Andrew Walker or Republican will gladly do the work for you.

15 nganadeeleg // Jan 12, 2007 at 10:24 am Its those lese majeste laws again it seems everyone wants to use them to get what they want politicians, media barons, supporters of the palace, and surprise surprise, even critics of the palace system. Pundit: Do you seriously think that rational criticism of the sufficiency economy theory will be taken to be lese majeste? In any case, there is no need to worry about lese majeste on this site - Im sure the palace and the junta will not be able to find any Anon, Republican or Bangkok Pundit in the phone book, so feel free to provide constructive criticism of the sufficiency economy theory. Most of the criticism I have seen has been concern about possible manipulation & abuse by bureaucrats etc, rather than real criticism of the concept. Anon: I cant help it if your sarcasm rings true! It is apparent that many posters on this site have very fixed views about the Thai political situation, and it is a shame that the level of debate cannot seem to rise above those existing biases. I am quite happy to declare my position:- I believe the country is better to have HMK offering advice and a steadying influence than it would be if the politicians were left to their own devices (or vices). Also, I am not so nave as to think that there are no behind the scene relationships involving some people close to the palace. Rather, I accept that those types of relationships exist virtually everywhere, including in western democracies that are supposed to be our salvation (Halliburton etc) Such relationships existed before, during and after Thaksin, and the only thing that changes is who is in and who is out at a certain point in time.

22

A royal project January 12th, 2007 by Andrew Walker 14 Comments

This is my third post on the 2007 Human Development Report for Thailand. Regular New Mandala reader Vichai reflects on my motivation for writing these pieces: Either you are being stupid or you are merely being malicious. Or your master has given you instruct[ions] to pursue this nonsense or you wont get paid. After the Christmas season expenses I can only hope that the cheque is in the mail! But this is a serious issue and one that deserves ongoing discussion. I thank those who responded thoughtfully to my previous post on this issue. I fully accept the inadequacies of my rudimentary and inexpert statistical analysis. But I do think it demonstrates the point that it may be fruitful to consider how sufficiency economy can be measured and how this may relate to other measures of human development. So far I have seen no consideration of this important issue in the Human Development Report. The second chapter of the report is primarily a promotional piece for the sufficiency economy approach. As at least one New Mandala reader has commented it is surprising that an international agency such as UNDP has been willing to endorse the promotion of an approach that in recent months has been politically mobilised to help justify the military overthrow of an elected government. Some explanation from UNDP is surely called for. That said, for interested readers, chapter 2 of the Human Development Report does provide an accessible introduction to the sufficiency economy approach and places it in the context of concerns about growing inequality, environmental degradation and the excesses of globalisation. There is much here that reads as good old fashioned common sense, though with a rather moralising tone. There are many wise words about moderation, reasonableness, resilience, knowledge and integrity. In itself, much of this is easy to accept as a good and wholesome thing, much like yoga, meditation and freshly squeezed fruit juice. But, as usual, the devil is in the detail. At the heart of the sufficiency economy approach is the concept of self reliant agriculture - a three stage process of human development. Stage 1 involves the famous model farm where land is allocated between fish ponds, rice cultivation, and crops and fruit: the production system maximized synergies between livestock and crops, and made the household self-reliant. Stage 2 extends self reliance to the community level with local exchange of household surpluses to meet local needs. There is some external exchange but local exchange should be preferred because it economizes on transport and other transaction costs. Stage 3 involves a higher level of external exchange to sell excess production and to obtain technology and resources. The chapter emphasises that sufficiency economy is not about economic isolation. Stages 2 and 3 involve increasing levels of external exchange. But (and this is crucially important):

23

Before moving to another stage, there first had to be a firm foundation of self-reliance or else there was a strong chance of failure and loss of independence. The driving force for development had to come from within, based on accumulation of knowledge. This sounds like a sober and sensible approach to human development. But I think it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of rural livelihoods. In many areas of rural Thailand limited land productivity, combined with population growth means that local resources simply cannot support the rural population. In the past rural villages survived by exporting surplus population to the land frontier. Now, surplus population is much more likely to move into urban employment. Most rural communities in Thailand probably derive more income off farm than they do in the agricultural sector. In other words local agriculture frequently exists, and persists, on a foundation of external social and economic linkages. The notion that external linkages should only be developed once there is a foundation in local sufficiency is simply not consistent with the economically diversified livelihood strategies pursued by rural people in contemporary Thailand. It is an agrarian vision from the past. There is a more specific question to be asked. Chapter 2 of the Human Development Report situates sufficiency economy in the context of royal initiatives in rural development such as the Royal Project Foundation: the key maxims have arisen from the Kings real-world experiences in development projects. They are a practical summary of what works, based on decades of experimentation, observation and evaluation. The reference to evaluation is a little puzzling as there really has been very little attempt to frankly evaluate the various royal rural development projects. As those working in rural Thailand will know, the royal projects are usually treated as a no-go zone for critical analysis. Given the scale of investment in these various schemes (and the emphasis now being placed on them as a template) this is disturbing. Certainly there are valid questions about the extent to which the royal projects themselves may accord with sufficiency economy principles. Based on my observations, the royal projects in northern Thailand often depend on substantial investment in infrastructure (sometimes involving the appropriation of land and water resources from local farmers). They are supported by substantial budgets and benefit from generous inputs from other government agencies seeking to cooperate with royal initiatives. Farmer views are mixed. No doubt many have benefited from royal project extension schemes and direct wage labour employment at royal project development stations. But others complain that the royal projects sometimes tend to target relatively successful farmers who are most likely to demonstrate the success of extension crops. There are also grumbles about slow payments for crops and reduced payments when crops dont meet appropriate standards. A good number of farmers I have talked to say they prefer to deal with private traders. Of course, these are fragmented and anecdotal observations. But in the absence of detailed, frank and appropriately critical evaluations there is not much else to go on. We need much more open and transparent discussion of the ways in which the royal projects themselves contribute to human development and the ways in which they support or contradict sufficiency economy principles. [New Mandala readers may be interested in this article in The Nation by Chris Baker. A New Mandala reader has commented: In an article in todays The Nation, Chris Baker refers to 24

himself as the main writer and editor of the UNDPs sufficiency economy report. His article makes one wonder whether there are actually two Chris Bakers in Bangkok.] Tags: Northern Thailand Publications Sufficiency Economy Thailand

14 responses so far

1 patiwat // Jan 12, 2007 at 12:15 pm Andrew notes, Most rural communities in Thailand probably derive more income off farm than they do in the agricultural sector. In other words local agriculture frequently exists, and persists, on a foundation of external social and economic linkages. The notion that external linkages should only be developed once there is a foundation in local sufficiency is simply not consistent with the economically diversified livelihood strategies pursued by rural people in contemporary Thailand. It is an agrarian vision from the past. I do not agree. It is inconsistent with actual improvements in poverty alleviation over the past 5 years. Poverty fell substantially since 2000, especially in the poorest region: the Northeast. The number of people living below the poverty line in the Northeast fell by half from 2000 to 2004. Was that improvement due to the economically diversified livelihood strategies suggested by Andrew? No - a double-digit p.a. rise in agricultural income was the major factor in the reduction of poverty. From 2000 to 2004, agricultural incomes rose by 40% - much higher than any other income sources. Most of this increase in income wasnt from increases in output, but from increases in value-added. Most of this data is from the World Bank and NESDB, see here. Thus it appears that, at least during the Thaksin administration, the largest increases in rural income came from the local agricultural sector, rather than from non-agricultural sources like labor export. This isnt to say that villages became self-sufficient - far from it. Higher value-added exports of agricultural products, in the form of OTOP and other policies, probably played an important role in raising incomes. The irony of this situation is that Thaksins village-oriented agricultural development policies (micro-credit, OTOP, etc.) actually delivered a lot of the benefits of selfsufficiency, even though the junta and its apologists would have you believe that Thaksinpolicies and self-sufficiency are contradictory.

2 White Elephant // Jan 12, 2007 at 1:09 pm Dearest Andrew, It still seems as though our attempts to colonize the Siamese people are still thwarted by love of this dastardly King. One wonders when the revolution will come? Or really how the revolution should be induced? Historical evaluations suggest that we must get amongst the farmers, the foundation of their infrastructure and lambaste the King. Maybe an edited version of Animal Farm that replaces Boxer the horse with Kiet the Buffalo and Snowball 25

the pig with Niran the boar should be made available to those developed enough to read? Rather than antagonize Vichai and cohorts further, I will admit that maybe farming is no longer a foundation for Thai infrastructure. Surely now it is tourism. Tourism that is promoted with the quaint idea of a King that is loved by his people, who is educated and moralistic enough to swallow his own sufficient economy of kindness and not build a palace over the Akha, to limit his motorcade of Mercedes to only 20 (which he travels to all these projects of his in), and to placard the streets of Bangkok with images of his family! As Nietszche said Only the boldest utopians would dream of the economy of kindness. Yes the monarchy and its tourists are indeed living in a utopia! Therefore, surely us foreign devils prefer it this way? It satisfies the Hegelian ego and ensures that when the Baht crashes again, Thai people are kept poor and we are treated well. A startling revelation! If we dont continue discussing development, we can keep doing what we are historically guilty of! Surely our masters will be impressed! love, Supreme Foreign Devil ~ White Elephant

3 Andrew Walker // Jan 12, 2007 at 3:11 pm Patiwat - thanks for your comment. This is the sort of debate/discussion that one might have hoped would be canvassed in the UNDP report. I accept the figures about the rise in agricultural incomes but, like you, I do wonder how much of this rise comes from a foundation in sufficiency. And I dont think an increase in agricultural income undermines the fundamental point about the diversity of household economies. In the northeast these agricultural incomes have surely increased from a rather low base. But, thanks again for the discussion of substantial livelihood issues.

4 New Mandala In-sufficient analysis // Jan 12, 2007 at 3:24 pm [] This chapter is another public relations piece for the sufficiency economy approach. It discusses a range of broadly defined sufficiency economy initiatives at local, corporate and national levels. The main case study discussed is the Inpaeng Network in northeast Thailand. The activities are described in terms of the three-stage model of local development discussed in my previous post. Network members started by turning away from cash cropping to local subsistence production; they then developed a range of external economic relations based on the clever identification, processing and marketing of local products. The result is a sufficiency success story: []

5 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jan 12, 2007 at 3:34 pm

26

It\s a bit kind to call Mr. Vichai a regular \reader.\ I think \heckler\ or \paranoid\ would more accurate titles. Is it just me who imagines Vichai hunched over his keyboard, furiously typing out his adhominem attacks and diatribes while wearing a tinfoil on his head? (You knowto deflect the Thaksinite mind-control rays.)

6 nganadeeleg // Jan 12, 2007 at 3:55 pm Unfortunately I dont place too much hope in the rise of agricultural income bringing salvation as it would be going against worldwide trends. As an anthropoligist, Andrew, I am sure you are aware of the trends in farming worldwide, including the general rise of off-farm incomes, the shift to the cities by the next generation, farm subsidies and farm conglomerates. For many owners of small farms in the west, farming is a more a way of life than a living. Box 2 on page 16 of the report that Patiwat linked to (in post #1 above) still paints a pretty bleak picture in the north east. I could not find detailed reasons for the rise in agricultural incomes - Patiwat, can you enlighten me on how the rises were achieved? The rise could come from a number of factors including a combination of increased productivity and increased prices. If productivity increased, was it due to seasonal factors, changed crop mix or improved techniques? If prices increased, was it due to world price increases, seasonal factors, value adding, price support subsidies, changed crop mix or other factors? Anyone know the answers?

7 chris white // Jan 12, 2007 at 4:02 pm His article makes one wonder whether there are actually two Chris Bakers in Bangkok. Yes. Very curious indeed!

8 chris white // Jan 12, 2007 at 4:13 pm Nganadeeled - Have a look at the price of rice. From memory I think it was about 4 baht a kilo 2003 and rose steadily to nearly 10 baht in 2005/6. Last time I looked, after the removal of the disastrous, economy ruining, price stabilisation scheme that Thaksin had put in place, it had fallen to about 6 baht a kilo. Perhaps this goes some of the way in explaining the rise in income from on farm activities.

9 patiwat // Jan 12, 2007 at 7:28 pm That same report showed that the major driver of the increase in agricultural income was increased prices, not output. 27

The report didnt specify a specific reason for the increase in prices. However, the increase was steady and high every year. This suggests that it was not due to seasonal factors, one-off subsidies, or changing crop mix, which would have resulted in sporadic increases. What seems more likely to me is that the increases were due to greater valueadded output. Id even go out on a limb and say that programmes like OTOP or microcredit probably played an important role in providing people with capital and resources neccesary to increase agricultural value-added. Its quite sad that with the coup, we wont be seeing any objective evaluation of just how effective TRT-policies were in poverty alleviation. Just as enough time has passed to accumulate enough information to do some real analysis, its become the fashion among Thai academics to dismiss anything related to the Thaksin-regime as evil.

10 nganadeeleg // Jan 12, 2007 at 8:49 pm Thanks Patiwat. I am sceptical about OTOP - it could be good, but from what I can see in practice it seemed more like a publicity stunt (pats on the back for the TRT government) with no real follow up. The dominant agricultural product would still be rice, and as approximately half of Thai rice production is exported, you would think that world prices would also be important did TRT policies impact the world price?

11 nganadeeleg // Jan 12, 2007 at 9:03 pm With regards to multiple Chris Bakers - I think the confusion has arisen because the description of who Chris Baker is appeared in the main body of the article, rather than the usual practice of putting it at the end (after the writers name) - Im not sure if this was Chris Bakers or The Nations mistake, but I think the snide criticism by some commentators is unwarranted.

12 anon // Jan 12, 2007 at 10:44 pm The same Chris Baker who is so critical (in both a good and bad way) about Thaksin is so chlear about the King. is it really the same Chris Baker?

13 Srithanonchai // Jan 13, 2007 at 1:48 am If Chris Baker cherishes his image as a critical political analyst, and if he cares about his academic credibility, he surely will have to come up with some very good explanations as to why he has allowed to be used as a royalist propagandist (Nakharin is in a similar position). And now The

28

Sufficiency going forward, diversity going backward January 16th, 2007 by Andrew Walker 15 Comments
This is my final comment on the UNDPs 2007 Thailand Human Development Report (for my previous post see here). My comments in this post focus on the final chapter (Sufficiency going forward) which explores the ways in which the sufficiency economy approach can help to change the direction of thinking and practice on development in Thailand. The chapter provides a series of specific action points. The ones that I found most interesting are those that relate to alleviating poverty and reducing the economic vulnerability of the poor. There are four action points under this heading. 1. Make the Sufficiency approach central to government anti-poverty policy through schemes to build local capacity for self-reliant production, disciplined expenditure and prudent risk management. Comment: I have addressed this issue in my comments on chapter 2. To put it bluntly, selfreliant production is simply not viable for most rural people in Thailand. Rural people have responded to resource constraints by diversifying livelihood strategies. Development strategies need to focus on spatial and economic livelihood diversity rather than prioritising a foundation of self-reliant production. A development emphasis on self reliant production is not consistent with rural peoples quite reasonable aspirations for educational opportunity, employment mobility and increased standards of living. The rural can no longer be equated with the agricultural. 2. Provide the landless and land-poor with land from the extensive reserves of land that is unused because of ownership by government agencies, encumbered by legal process, or other reasons. Comment: In some cases this may be reasonable but it is important to remember that land is no longer the basis for rural livelihoods, security or prosperity that it may have been in the past. Many of the landless households I know are not particularly interested in acquiring land, partly because they simply lack the capital to invest in the types of agricultural production that will provide them with a reasonable return. They are more interested in good jobs. In some cases underutilised land may be symptomatic of maldistribution. More often, I suspect, it reflects the economic reality that returns in other sectors are much more attractive. Of course, this is not to deny that there are many farmers with uncertain land tenure, especially those who live (like Prime Minister Surayud) in conservation forest areas. I wonder if this recommendation is suggesting that forest regulation should be relaxed somewhat to provide for more secure tenure for these farmers. I suspect not. 3. Implement the community control over local resources that was promised in the 1997 Constitution by passing the community forestry bill and other enabling legislation. Comment: Again, there may be some benefits in some cases. But as I have written elsewhere I am very sceptical about the livelihood benefits to be gained from the proposed community forest 29

legislation. In particular the community forest legislation does not give farmers resident in conservation forest areas any more secure tenure to their agricultural land. 4. Ensure development spending is not skewed to certain provinces with political clout, but is equitably distributed, targeted at areas of real need, and used more creatively. This is just another tired attack on Thaksins so-called populist policies. What about some serious evaluation of Thaksins policies and the proposed alternatives? The Human Development Report makes a range of other recommendations relating to community empowerment, corporate responsibility, public administration, national immunity and education. But what is striking is that there is nothing in the action points that seeks to seriously address the basic problems of inequality identified in chapter 1 of the report. Remember the key finding from that chapter: People in Bangkok, Bangkok Vicinity and other regional growth areas enjoy higher levels of human development than people in more isolated provinces. The North and the Northeast, as well as a few provinces in the deep South, are placed at much lower levels. What does the sufficiency economy approach presented in this report have to say about this persistent inequality? Very little. This is the crux of my objection to the sufficiency economy approach. It is one of the ideological tools used by elites to take the pressure off them to address any serious redistribution of income or resources. Under the sufficiency economy ideological framework, initiatives that seek to direct resources to relatively impoverished rural areas are too readily dismissed as immoderate and populist handouts that undermine the sufficiency foundation of local communities. And the sufficiency economy emphasis on developing capability from within is too readily deployed to offer comfort to those who resist serious and substantial resource allocations to rural communities. Whatever is said about the application of the sufficiency economy approach to business or the national economy, its primary regulatory force is directed to rural communities. It is at the rural level that the template for action is most clearly defined: focus on establishing a foundation of local sufficiency before developing external linkages. And it is towards rising rural expectations (for economic and political inclusion) that the elite urgings of moderation, reasonableness and immunity are most clearly directed. Tags: Sufficiency Economy Uncategorized

15 responses so far

1 nganadeeleg // Jan 17, 2007 at 9:30 am Like you, Andrew, Im all for a serious redistribution of income or resources. Lets start with Thaksin & his family paying proper taxes instead of using tax havens and coerced revenue department officials to escape paying tax.

30

I know he did generously do some redistribution to his maid, but then she was even more generous and redistributed back to the family. Are you opposed to the sufficiency principles of moderation, reasonableness and immunity per se, or only when it is directed towards rising rural expectations?

2 Andrew Walker // Jan 17, 2007 at 11:59 am Are you opposed to the sufficiency principles of moderation, reasonableness and immunity per se, or only when it is directed towards rising rural expectations? Surely the context is the key. As I have said several times in my comments on the UNDP report, many of the general statements about sufficiency are easy to agree with. What I am arguing against is the way these general ideas are deployed to justify a particular approach to rural development and a particular approach to economic and political participation. You, and others, may agree with the desirability of sacrifice but this does not mean you accept the particular way it is used in, for example, Thaksins recent interview. Simplified concepts are useful political tools.

3 nganadeeleg // Jan 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm Yes, context is the key, however it is also possible to identify recurring themes in the comments of most posters on this site. It is obvious that I do not admire Thaksin, but I am not prepared to say all his policies were wrong. In the end, Thaksins personal greed and ego let down those who supported him, and their cause may have been further set back as a result of subsequent events. On the other hand, I do admire the King, but I do not accept that his guidance must always become official policy. If only the junta could stop being spooked by Thaksins maneuvering, then good people could concentrate in getting things right for the next attempt at democracy.

4 Nirut // Jan 17, 2007 at 4:15 pm The appeal of the sufficiency rhetoric that you discuss here is the crux of the problem and the caveats that you apply to determine whether or not, or in what form, it is ok is quite telling in terms of how the people at the heart of the matter are in a very unfortunate predicament. The predicament is not simply the application of the ideology to the detriment of the population of Thailand but also that the critics of it cant see beyond the alternatives that they have drawn of simplistic dichotomies that seem to be the default response to it, to see their way out of the whole farce. You see what is being said in the UNDP report, 31

espoused by the Junta and invented by the King, is in structure being espoused by this blog, the struggle being which of you has the right to speak of, and on behalf of the rural population is what is in fact being sorted out. The King and Junta (with tacit support from UNDP) argue for one way of being, you lot argue for another, neither of you are speaking in terms reflected on the ground. It is clear that what constitutes the aspirations of the rural folk here is derived from a reflection of self through the mirror of if I was in their position I would want (with a touch of what is in it for me if they did want development) and for all the discussion that this and many blogs like it have contributed to the issue the outsider who is not sold on the limited choices the collective here operates in accordance with, is left with the uneasy feeling that the people under discussion, those who should be sufficient or developed in their lifestyles , are being run over rough shod in equal measure by the lot of you. Are capitalist forms of exchange of labour what everybody wants, if so says who? In my experience in non urban Thailand people bemoan the loss of the viability of lifestyles that would send a shiver down the World Banks spine (if it had one), ones that are neither totally sufficient nor totally developed but that have been turned away from through the combination of development initiatives such as the green revolution and the massive landlessness that this incurred, as well as rampant industrialisation for the past 36 years that effectively denuded Thailand of its vegetation and a massive source of food. Lifestyles that have possibilities of social mobility and are far richer in their day to day content than the capitalist based options that underpins both proponents and opponents of the sufficiency economy structure of class division in regards to its means of production. Whether one is a proponent of sufficiency, development or self determination or any combination of the above what you are arguing for and against is meaningless when you claim to be the spokesperson for the people with whom, I will wage any amount of money on, you have yet to discuss the issue with let alone listen to them on. It is not particularly illuminating to limit the issue here to the Thai context either as sustainability is the catch cry of this century and its ideology has been mobilised in a similar fashion to the Junta/ Kings use even in the west where elite groups use it to legitimate a tightening of the underclass belt in all manner of areas meanwhile they feast at never before seen rates of consumption As for what the rural population might want in terms of economic and political participation I think the conceptual division that has emerged here that Thaksin represents one option (participation, poverty alleviation etc) and the Junta and King the other (perpetuation of and heightened poverty with zero participation) is a little simplistic and reflects a need for a greater appreciation of the political landscape beyond the grand rhetoric of failing states and true democracies and other such fantastical constructs that are espoused from your platforms of Tabloid understandings of politics (ie personality politics). Speaking of which what ever became of the paper you were writing on this, Andrew? I digress (again), to me the upshot of all the analysis here is that the Junta have a vested interest in sufficiency economy in terms of controlling for their benefit the distribution of wealth but so do their critics. Andrew is not merely an anthroplogist interested in Thailand but is part of The Resource Management in Asia-Pacific (RMAP) Program at 32

the Australian National University, others of you are probably enjoying expatriate lifestyles that benefit from foreign economic and political involvement in Thailand. In Andrews case he occupies a positionality that demands he oppose sufficiency economy as it is antithetical to his career, regardless of what his personal position might otherwise have been. I use Andrew as the only clear exampl ehere as he is both very vocal about and involved in the issue as well as th eonly person whose context is as publicly accessible as the other group (Junta etc). So what we have here instead of a genuine interest in the people in question is the assertion of ones own worlod view using others voices One positive that has emerged I suppose is how sufficiency economy has been a catalyst for a broader realisation perhap of just how much of a farce the UN (be it UN DP, FPA, ICEF, HCR, AIDS, TAC etc) really is.

5 Andrew Walker // Jan 17, 2007 at 6:55 pm Oh dear Nirut, it seems I have been exposed on my own blog: I speak for the villagers but have never spoken to them; and I have a vested career interest in opposing sufficiency economy and promoting capitalist social relations. And this comes on top of Vichais revelation that I am in the pay of Thaksin. My CV is looking rather shaky! Perhaps just one small point in my defence - the paper I have mentioned earlier on local political values is progressing well. I hope to have a draft (which I will make available on this blog) by the end of February. But, Nirut, as you would surely appreciate, writing a paper about local values takes a long time when you have never talked to local people! And as for using others voices . please give my best New Years wishes to Saoneua, Haklao, Anarchist, Tumsom, Kradortom, Lingling and the rest of the gang. I hope you all managed to get together over the festive season.

6 Nirut // Jan 18, 2007 at 12:57 am hmmmnot quite what I meant on the voices front but never mind. Now I might make some outlandish comments ( I do so to stimulate debatealbeit more often than not rather unsuccessfully here) but I stop short of the conspiracy stuff that you are in the pay of Thaksin or the like so you can stop the comparisson with Vichai there. I Just thought Id see if the critique can go both waysie middle-class have their interests as do you in this sufficiency economy debate. Perhaps if I were to provide you with an example of what I am talking about you will be more receptive to my perspective (or not). I looked at submitting this so you could make it a post for the political culture and vote buying you were wanting but thought it is probably not quite what you would be looking forso held off. I have framed it now in terms of the sufficiency economy debate and my ideas on it. If it is too long for the comment section here I wont mind if you dont include it. Recently much discussion on New Mandala regarding events in Thailand has focused on the sensational developments of the ousting of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatr by a military Junta allied closely to the Thai monarch. Analyses of the subsequent events that have unfolded have reflected, i think, a disproportionate 33

dependency on media representations and debates have tended to allow the media to set the issues and the tone or parameters in which they will be discussed. In particular the English language newspaper The Nation has featured as a central source of issues on this blog, to the point that the Nations own reporting recently became a topic of discussion here (Royalty and Loyalty.). Interestingly and perhaps not by coincidence, much of the academiccontribution here has reflected earlier tendencies in the study of Thailand to privilege state and elite perspectives over those of the general population, perspectives that constitute the bread and butter of newspaper (sometimes tabloid) reporting. I wouldlike to propose a discussion that moves away from the stereotypes of media attempts to hold the politically powerful accountable, by rendering their actions as transparent as is possible (media and politics existing in sets of relations that certainly call intoquestion any notion of impartiality,)and to shift away from the predictability of the hagiography of the monarch, the institution of the monarchy, and the indulgences in predicting the future while double guessing the past and present actions of said monarch that constitue so much of the content of these personality politics based discussions. As an alternative to the media and elite positions that have been amply discussed here, I propose to provide some anecdote/data on what being in Thailand during this tumultuous period was like by sharing the reflections of an informant, shared with me while spending some time recently in Nakhorn Sawan inCentral Thailand. Sitting in a sala on the side of the road awaiting a songtaew I asked Chai, an informant I had met two weeks before, while conducting open ended surveys on attitudes towards Reproductive Health information programmes in a subdistrict of Nakhorn Sawan province, and who was now accompanying me to the bus station in the provincial capital, what his take on present political situation in Thailand was. What do you think of the coup and how Thaksin was deposed by the military? Politics for me is uninteresting. I am concerned (huang reuang)that my family are in debt, my relatives are in debt and I (38 year old male rice farmer) am in debt. All of the overnment projects and programmes (khrong karn saraphat khong rathaban)to help the poor, we poor, have made more debt out of debt (saang nee jark nee). When Thaksin left we thought the debt would go with him but we just got a new creditor (jao nee) so we had to borrow more money to pay them. Before you could play shares(len shae) and if you were lucky get somewhere, pay off some debt. Now you have to porn (pon)gold as a down payment (jamnam thong) with your creditor and where in shares the interest was never more than 20% now it gets as high as 35-40%. It doesnt matter who is in government , who buys your vote, you will be in debt to whoever is the government. I dont find it boring (Naa beua) I am bored of all their faces (Beua khi naa tang mord)Look at all the crime now. The govt tells us all is well and we are getting democracy back soon. Thaksin killed his opponents and this lot (puak nii)will kill theirs and in the meantime youth are stabbing and shooting eachother across the country, instead of celebrating the harvest we are at funerals. Our leaders (phunam) are crazy and now 34

our children (luuk laan)are copying them. Last month three young men (noom saam khon)walked into our neighbours house and robbed them. The next day a young woman was stabbed and killed and robbed in the next village, they cut off her hands. She wore gold bracelets and necklaces. This all used to happen before, before Thaksin, even during Thaksin, but some people might say it didnt. But now it is happening more and more and it is getting more violent. There is no point being intereted in politics, they make us in debt and then they make debt out of debt and then people kill because of the debt on debt. When they buy our votes it is like a cell phone promotion. You buy a sim card (Chai points to his Nokia cell)because they offer you some free calls, about 300 baht included in the price, then they take all your money as you are stuck with themunless you buy another sim with another company on a another promotion. The company buys your vote and you are in debt to them. The government buys your vote and you are in debt to them. This brief and somewhat pessimestic reflection on the state of affairs in Thailand since the coup was similarly reflected in comments made by other people I spoke with in Nakhorn Sawan and elsewhere in central Thailand toward the end of last year (2006). In particular other people were concerned with debt related crime and a perceived increase in its incidence. Of interest here however, is the particular emphasis on debt and disenchantment with the political process, two issues that have been discussed in depth here and elsewhere, but with a very different flavour. Where debates have pitted the urban middle-classes ideologically against the rural poor (etc) in terms of the poor as representing a mass united under the populist policies of Thaksin and with contradictory needs and wants politically to the the middleclasses (another group seen to be united under a banner but against him), we have here an example of how such issues are seemingly irrelevent in the face of the more pressing concerns of soaring debt and crime. The perspective here differing also from World Bank and UNDP assessments of the social, economic and political situaion in Thailand. Of further interest is how Chai sees vote buying as being like a promotional for cellphone cards in that no matter who you go with they will all drag you into debt as once ensconced changing provider/government requires more resources than seems reasonable/viable for people like him, especially considering that inevitably you end up with more of the same (boring faces). I would like to emphasise that the disenchantment here is not manifest in terms of exclusion from the political process by way of the coup and the ousting of a populist cum legitimate prime minister as understood by proponents of democracy lost ideas, rather it is a blanket disenchantment with politics at the level of the structural where the issues of procedure and substance are seen as being moot points and where the normative acts of power of government, Thaksinss extrajudicial killngs, are seen to be mirrored in the staging cum potential of the coup, and are seen to be being reproduced at the level of the genral population through a ombination of being forced through soaring debt and reproduced through cultural emulation.

35

Clearly there is a different percpetion here of what is at stake than the issues of democracy under threat and populist policies. In fact the popularity of the very policies themselves are in question and in keeping with other data I have collected elsewhere in the central Thailand are not as popular as the voting outcome would indicate. Hence my continued call for an on the ground perspective.

7 polo // Jan 18, 2007 at 6:07 am The kings answer to persistent inequality is to tell the peasants not to aspire too much. I am not certain this is to protect the elite, though the elite certainly exploit the kings message in this way. But non-aspiration does translate as non-desire, and is promoted to the poorest rather than the richest. But I guess its hard to promote non-desire to the rich when your wife and kids are out scoring new jewelry all the time.

8 nganadeeleg // Jan 18, 2007 at 10:39 am Hopefully, at least the Kings message gets people thinking about the way they live, and what their aspirations are (and why). Applies equally to rich and poor. At the risk of being accused of ethnocentricism again, I sometimes think many of us are on a treadmill, and never really allow ourselves to reflect of what we are doing, and why.

9 Nirut // Jan 18, 2007 at 1:30 pm Guys my point here is that it doesnt require the King for people to reflect on their aspirations and situations and in fact his reflections dont match theirs as you will see above. Here I am in total agreeance with Andrews sentiment that that the fact that the King feels a need to comment/ideologise peoples aspirations is indicative of his concern over their potential to pose a credible threat to his power base (and the elite fractions that support him). By talking about peoples aspirations the way he does the king is effectively pathologising them by presenting them as unsustainable (problematic) yet gives no sense as to why he might think so and no credible rationale for thinking so. Here Holly Highs ideas on blame development resonate closely in that the perceived ills of the world (over consumption of resource, flooding etc etc etc) is seen to be a result of the general populations unsustainable lifestyles. Industry and elite wealth making enterprises that have far outstripped things like population pressure on resources and the environment are seen as necessary and somehow more sustainable than peoples desire for white goods and a living, for example. I however, find it highly problematic that you have allowed the King (aka elite concerns) to become the point of reference that define how and what people will discuss and as is evidenced throughout this blog and the media, the debate rages in terms of the limits he has set. As anthropologists we are best positioned to provide alternative and far more nuanced appreciations and representations of what is happening, in particular the sheer diversity of views rather than the simplistic homogenised models people are working with on this and other blogs, for example what are peoples aspirations (to date here we have assumptions as to what they are, no solid data, asumptions that are derived from the Kings appraisal of the situation at that), we could be asking whole sets of other questions 36

rather than engaging with the patently ideological rubbish that the King and cronies is espousing as they attempt to reshape and maintain control over their subjects. Failure to let ethnographically derived perspectives to replace the patently ridiculous claims of King and friends , effectively disallowing the ideology to control cum be the debate, is remiss of us and antithesis to the anthropological project. Broader things are at play than the somewhat limited attempts at legitimation of an ailing King and his coup cronies and yet it is their words and their setting of the issues that are given the most air time here. It is hard not to wonder if this willingness to accord such legitimacy to the king and his ideologies is due to an attraction to the grandiose nature of power and hence disinterest in the nitty gritty and challenging details of the general populations own take on things and how the familiarity and ease with which talking about politics and power brokers sees you all dive into English langauge papers on a Thai language etc speaking country and UN reports and world bank statistics all the while debatig the lot of the uneducated masses that these reports and statistics and news paper articles describe in very familair language and terms.no taken for granteds are being subject to scrutiny just a challenging of the ridiculously transparent claims of a dated eliteby this I do not mean that everyone should become literate in Thai or have to be to comment (for those who might like to take a cheap shot and detract from what i am saying) but there are other sources (specifically books written in English by Thai literate peole who study Thailand) acessible and easliy availableyou dont have to be enrolled in a course to read a good book. So, all I am saying hobby, is it is problematic to accept that it would take the king to make people reflect on their circumstances and aspirations, people do this all the time, the issue here is the king doesnt want people to, so he is providing them with his blueprint for their aspirations and it is fundamentally limiting cum completley oppressive. I would suggest we forget about the king and his cronies for a while and discuss the people, look at the structures of inequality and asymetrical distribution of power and the effects this has on peoples ability to sufficiently survive and also the history that has placed these people in the position of subaltern to a mad monarch who has legitimated so much of their oppressionI am thinking Siamese colonialism, green revolution, rice tax, counter insurgency initiatives and US funding based massive expansion of police and military and propping up of dictators (just like Central America, south America etc), and so on, and lets look at what people are saying and doing instead of taking the elite representation at face value. Take for an example an extreme case I know of in Nongkhai where a young man (20year old going on 21) living in rural nongkhai, Thailand wanted to get married and had a 6 grade education, his father worked on international fishing trawllers for years at a time and has come home for two weeks between trips, bearing seacucumbers to make larb for everyone and enough money to buy a pick up truck that he has given to the younger brother so he can make money with his wife running market deliveries on weekends and operating on the local songtaew queue on weekdays. He has to date worked on his familiys rice paddy and occassionally done some seasonal wage labour work, to suplement his share in the familys rice crop usually earning around 800 to 1500 baht a month for one or two months at a time. However, through his fathers connections he could borrow 150,000 baht by entering into endentured labour with another ship, the 37

money would provide him with necessary brideprice (35000), wedding (12000) and the pay off to the military to avoid conscription (27000) in a few months time, with the rest left over for his wife to set herself up selling food from a roadside stall in town (15,000) and to give his mother the remainder as she was looking after three grand children to other siblings and was in poor health (part of money was used to pay for local labour to help with the rice fields) . Another opportunity he had was to borrow money from creditors and pay intermediary agencies to get him work in the middleeast or Taiwan . Otherwsie he can work his familys 5 rai of rice paddy and have a share in its produce and do seasonal wage labour in the district or migrate to Bangkok in order to have a supplementary living, these latter two seeing him have to risk conscription and certaily not be able to marry for quite some time. What to do? What are the aspirations and circumsatnces that underpin his choices. Well clearly he wants to get married and needs (not just aspires to ) an income. In this situation he took the shipping job and loan but was crippled in an accident and had to be in a wheel chair 7 months into paying back his debt which left his family to have to pay back the remainder (just over 110,000 baht plus interest. So the family mortgaged the house and paddy to Kasikorn Thai for 60,000 baht and borrowed through other creditors the remainder. With his health related costs and the need to pay outsiders to help with the rice the family couldnt keep up with payments and so had to borrow at higher rates of interst to keep up payments with the bank this culminated in the younger brother selling his songtaew and borrwing to get a job in Israel. First two years this was successful and he came back payments on the house were almsot complete, second trip however, the agents who were arranging his transport, visas job etc absconded with the money leaving him in debt around 180,000 baht. They lost the house and land. There is nothing abnormal or frivilous about the aspirations and actions taken in this story (that was relate to me by his wife and siblings) and certainly nothing about the aspirations are unsustainable. But to move away, for a moment, from the frame that the discussion of sufficiency economy has limited us to, I find it interesting how entreperneurial people are and think that the way people make sense of what hapens in these circumstances and how they continue on and what they do in order to survive is testament to an incredibly rich and creative process of reflection on their situations and circumstances. In context of the king and his Juntas comments this is another example of just how ridiculous the whole discussion is if left on their terms, end of story.

10 nganadeeleg // Jan 18, 2007 at 3:45 pm A very sad story, Nirut, although I am sure you will find similar stories of desperate circumstances, bad luck and misfortune throughout the world - including places that dont have kings or juntas. Has it ever ocurred to you that, rather than being concerned over their potential to pose a credible threat to his power base, the King mght have a genuine concern for the rural poor? Im talking about HMK in person, not the cronies and power base. Have you thought about just how much power that one man really has, and what influence he has over the cronies and power base? How long would he last if he persistently went against the power base? Do you really think the (small farm) new theory was just devised as a way to keep people 38

poor? Theres only room for one Republican amongst the voices here! As far as aspirations go, please remember that HMK has attained a reasonable age, and with that age comes time to reflect and for some people, wisdom. Perhaps I am closer in age to HMK than you, and therefore much of what he says in regards to aspirations seems to resonate with my thoughts. Back to your sad tale, it brings me to my feeling that we are on a treadmill. The young man appeared to have fairly modest aspirations, although I wonder why it is necessary to pay a bride price and spend more than you can afford on a wedding. Who put those expectations there? Societal pressures? Those things are a small example of what is happening througout society - why do we need to have cars, mobile phones, fancy houses & large mortgages, plasma tvs etc etc? Food, Education, Health & Heath Care, Legal Rights & Protections, and Security seem much more important to me than possesions. A wise man once said Enough to live on, and enough to live for. Corruption is probably the greatest problem in Thailand, and it exists whether the country is under a democratic system or not. Why should you have to pay off the military to avoid conscription? I can agree with much of what you and Andrew say, although I think it is misguided to think that the King is the problem and Thaksin style democracy is the solution. The stock market movements show that not even the foreign investors are concerned about democracy, and they only care about their pockets. Yes, I am indeed fortunate to be able to make this my hobby.

11 Vichai N. // Jan 19, 2007 at 1:16 am People try to blow HMKs Sufficiency Economy tenets or guidance disproportionately out of context. For most of us in this forum, we can ALL agree we NEVER ever refer to the Kings yearend sermon of sorts for inspiration, OK? We all do what we damn well please anyway and our sufficiency is our own business, and nobody elses. But there are many people who look up to HMK for guidance and inspiration. And HMK must no doubt be aware and concerned of the plight of the millions of villagers who aspire for better things, and, to villagers deeply in plight (like the example of Nirut). And HMKs Sufficiency Economy wants to address these peoples concerns - - people must learn to live within their means is what is sufficiency economy is all about. Because it is a fact that many of these villagers overreach themselves (with all those easy loans from Thaksin era followed by his anybody-can-be-as-rich-as-Thaksin message to these guillibles.) 39

Personally I believe it is NOT realistic to literally translate HMKs Sufficiency Economy into a detailed government platform. Prudent market directed economy is probably what PM Surayuds government is trying to achieve. But anyone will tell you . . in a market economy (example the stock market) prudence varies from person to person and greed always wins (example Thaksin).

12 anon // Jan 19, 2007 at 7:25 am But the coup was executed so that the junta could implement the self-sufficient economy the juntas constitution says so very clearly. Even if you dont want to blow the self-sufficient economy out of proportion, the military certainly did. By exposing self-sufficiency for the flimsy sham it is, this junta has drawn more flack to the monarchy than Thaksin ever could. Instead of protecting the throne, they have actually weakened it.

13 John Francis Lee // Mar 11, 2007 at 11:00 pm Just found this blog and was, frankly, appalled at the perspective of Andrew Walker. If this is the most sympathetic vision of Thailand available in the enlightened academies of Australia well, hes young yet I imagine. I did enjoy Niruts comments. And he doesnt seem to be very old. Thanks for taking the time and effort, all of you, in creating this blog. Ill surely follow it in the future.

40