This is my fourth post on Thailand’s 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:
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 UNDP’s 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 Network’s 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 doesn’t address the issue that some people have much greater government support than others!
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 economy’s 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.
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 scheme…lacked 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 Baker’s 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 it’s 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?
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_food_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_strategies_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 King’s 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 didn’t 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 UNDP’s 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. [...]
7 Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense // Nov 7, 2007 at 6:49 am
[...] New Mandala readers may recall my commentary on the UNDP’s 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.”
Wasn’t that what OTOP was about?
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.