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 won’t 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):
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 King’s 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 don’t 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 today’s The Nation, Chris Baker refers to himself as the main writer and editor of the UNDP’s “sufficiency economy” report. His article makes one wonder whether there are actually two Chris Bakers in Bangkok."]
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 wasn’t 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 isn’t 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 Thaksin’s village-oriented agricultural development policies (micro-credit, OTOP, etc.) actually delivered a lot of the benefits of self-sufficiency, even though the junta and its apologists would have you believe that Thaksin-policies 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 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 don’t 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 don’t 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
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 ad-hominem attacks and diatribes while wearing a tinfoil ชฎา on his head? (You know…to 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.
The report didn’t 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 value-added output. I’d even go out on a limb and say that programmes like OTOP or micro-credit probably played an important role in providing people with capital and resources neccesary to increase agricultural value-added.
It’s 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, it’s 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) – I’m not sure if this was Chris Baker’s 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 Economist…
14 New Mandala » Sufficiency going forward, diversity going backward // Jan 16, 2007 at 9:13 pm
[...] Comment: I have addressed this issue in my comments on chapter 2. To put it bluntly, self-reliant 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 people’s quite reasonable aspirations for educational opportunity, employment mobility and increased standards of living. The “rural” can no longer be equated with the “agricultural.” [...]
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.