Interesting to read in Nich’s post that there is some discussion of the sufficiency economy in Bangkok. To date, much of the discussion about the King’s theory has focussed on rural areas. Here are some images that give some indication of what the theory is about. The first is the cover of a book of collected case studies illustrating different aspects of sufficiency economy. The other a striking image from the book of sufficiency economy at a household level. The King’s theory proposes that farmers allocate 30% of their land to rice production, 30% to mixed gardening and orchards, 30% to fishponds and 10% to their living area.
There is much to discuss about the “sufficiency economy” approach. It certainly is not advocating a retreat to economic autarky (though the farmers in the pictures do look rather isolated). But it does appear to place a strong (and perhaps primary) emphasis on agricultural production for local use. How this meshes with local aspirations for improved standards of living, basic services and educational opportunity remains an open question. I recall the time I was watching television with a farmer in Chiang Rai and he apologised for the bad reception, explaining that this was “TV pho phiang” (sufficiency television). As rural areas increasingly become non-agricultural in orientation (and this has progressed much further than many would assume) sufficiency approaches to livelihood may be hard to sell, even with the widely recognised wisdom and insight of the King.But to return to sufficiency in the city. What might the sufficiency economy look like in Bangkok? Something like this perhaps?
3 responses so far ↓
1 Jakkrit // Jun 22, 2006 at 1:52 pm
In my view I think the King did not try to make Bangkok to be what so called “the sufficient city” since it is obvious that Bangkokians to day are quite removed from what is being sufficient. But what the king has tried to do for more than a decade to Bangkok is to make it just a “livable city”. The royal project to solve the traffic problem is one thing that may not solve all the problem but at least it helped better the real bad situation existed before. The King used to call the traffic in Bangkok as a ‘zero kilometre / hour’. Now the traffic flow is 20 km/h, I guess. That is better, right?
Also the flood control in Bangkok, the idea he got is from woring on different irrigational project in the upcountry ares. ‘Kam Ling’ or the Monkey Cheek project is a good example.
The other thing to think about, and it relateds to the city itself too, is how ’sufficient economy’ in agricultural sector will help preventing rural people from coming and explioting the capitalism of the capital city. I think the effect of sufficient economy will keep farmers stay with thier roots.
BioDiesel also links the issues of fluctuationof agricultural product and energy shortage together. That is also the the piont where the city and rural problem can, to certain extent, be solved together.
So when we look at how to solve the issues of Bangkok or to make it at least livable, it has to put in the context of national development as a whole. But I don’t think the governer of Bangkok and the Prime Minister see this piont yet.
2 New Mandala » The coup and self-sufficiency // Sep 24, 2006 at 10:01 am
[...] Specifying familiarity with the King’s ideas on economic development is a different matter altogether. To my eye, it is much more problematic. Here at New Mandala we have often written about “self-sufficiency”. In the context of Andrew’s earlier comments on future strategies for left(ish) activist-academics in the post-coup environment, Sophon’s proclamation (however fanciful it may actually be) is a sign that “self-sufficiency” could become a new battleground. [...]
3 New Mandala » Virtuous sufficiency // Oct 29, 2006 at 5:52 pm
[...] As I posted a few months ago, perhaps there are more realistic, investor-friendly and people-friendly economic visions. I came across this one while undertaking ethnographic research in a popular northern Thai eating establishment: [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.