In response to a critical article in the Asian Wall Street Journal, The Nation has printed a piece that attempts to clarify the sufficiency economy agenda and its relationship to the policies of the Surayud regime:
“The Learning Centre of King Bhumibol’s Philosophy of Economic Sufficiency says the concept focuses on living a moderate, self-dependent life without greed or overexploitation of, for example, natural resources.
A more advanced approach includes exchanges of assistance and cooperation to benefit the public as well as promoting sustainable development. The three main features of the economic-sufficiency philosophy are moderation, reasonable actions and mental strength, and two conditions are knowledge and morality.
Importantly, it is “sufficiency economy”, and not “self-sufficiency economy”…
Despite Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont’s series of explanations at many venues, the philosophy has failed to sink in. And now foreigners believe several key economic moves introduced by the military-installed government are both inward-looking and inspired by the sufficiency-economy philosophy.”
- from “Misunderstanding continues unabated“, The Nation, 17 January 2007
11 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Jan 17, 2007 at 8:22 pm
So, “sufficiency economy” was introduced “mainly to help poor farmers.” First, there are relatively few of them left in Thailand. But this has not been due to “sufficiency economy” policies or lifestyles. Rather, the trick was done by integrating people into the modern economic sector, expanding infrastructure, etc. Second, all those who do not fall into the category of “poor farmers” can ignore “sufficiency economy.” And they certainly do–as can easily be seen in Bangkok as well as up-country. Third, the concept has not been embraced. As with many other labels (planning, efficiency, quality, performance, morality, knowledge), it is used merely as a discoursive symbol. The main difference is that, since “sufficiency economy” is a royalist project, a lot more fuss is being made.
2 Johpa // Jan 18, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Khun Srithanochai, please rest assured that there remain multitudes of poor farmers in Thailand who I believe, last time I looked, still constitute the majority of the population. Many have indeed migrated and become poor urban dwellers. But these people have not been integrated into the modern economic sector, or at least I don’t see Khlong Toey residents in such light. Do you? The city people with the money may call this mobility, but the poor probably see it more as instability.
Sufficiency is not a Royal project. I have watched a few Royal Agricultural projects up north over the past few decades, and most are more aimed at experimental agricultural crops, attempting to grow more novel crops for cash and then selling them to hotels catering to foreigners, and nothing much more.
I am not really sure what the sufficiency economy is all about. I have yet to read anything specific as HRM tends to write and speak a bit elliptically. HRM may be a conservative monarchist who prefers the company of military men, but I am all for him speaking out more forcefully and more specifically on the subject of this economic concept if it stands in opposition to “free trade”. I am waiting.
The Nation article offers little insight.
Here is one problematic paragraph:
While praising ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s free-trade initiatives, The Asian Wall Street Journal failed to point out the widening trade deficits Thailand has experienced since signing free-trade agreements (FTAs) with China and India during his era. It also failed to mention the current government’s intentions of pursuing pending FTAs, but in a more discreet way and including public reviews to ensure transparency.
The Asian Wall Street journal is of course a believer in free trade agreements as well as a believer in the “invisible hand of the market” so we would not expect it to note the all too common trend that FTAs don’t do much to improve the local economics of small countries like Thailand. The new government is noted as continuing the trend toward FTAs, and I just don’t think that being more discreet or being more transparent (I am not even going to touch The Nations claim to morality) will change anything what so ever. Methinks that all this talk about “sufficiency” is smoke and mirrors wrapped up in Royal robes to deflect criticism that the coup is not going to change anything other than the cast of lead characters.
3 Srithanonchai // Jan 18, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Khun Johpa, one should not, I think, confuse “poor” and “farmers.” This is a typical urban misconception. An urban businessman in a rural province once told me that all those people who are farmers will always remain poor, i.e., until they had become businesspeople. Certainly, the poor do not constitute the majority of the Thai population, neither even do the farmers, since their proportion of the total population has been substantially reduced over the past few decades. I don’t think that Khlong Toey slum is very representative of Bangkok. This said, I agree with you that there are certainly still poor people in Thailand, whether they constitute eight or 10% of the population, and that they fully deserve being taken seriously policy-wise. This includes a differentiated perspective on regional differences as well.
4 patiwat // Jan 19, 2007 at 7:10 am
Srithanonchai is correct here. The majority of the Thai labor force hasn’t been employed in agriculture since the early 1990’s. The exact figure is a bit problematic due to seasonal fluctuations, but I think the current percentage fluctuates somewhere between 30-45% of the total population. The ILO’s KILM series should have the latest figures, as should the NESDB.
The majority of the Thai population hasn’t been below the poverty line since the 70’s or 80’s. At the beginning of the Thaksin government, over 20% of the population was below the poverty line – today, it’s around 10%.
5 Johpa // Jan 19, 2007 at 11:43 am
If the majority of the labor force is not employed in agriculture, then where are they? Are they employed at all? Given a ball park population of Thailand at 65 milliion with about 10 million in Bangkok and say, being extremely generous, another 10 million spread about in other cities, we still have over 40 milliion people to account for, over half the population.
I don’t know how you want to define poverty levels in Thailand and I would imagine that however you measure it, poverty levels have dropped. Yet the poor still remain the disenfranchised poor. Many have migrated to the city where they have become the urban poor, ranging from low paid manual laborers to the Thai version of the lumpen prolotariat. I do not know current numbers as to what percentage still work in agriculture, whether in their own fields, in rented fields, or living in dormitories operated by large agribusinesses such as the CP Group, or are simply umemployed farmers. I have friends in all of the above categories. But as one who has spent the majority of time in-country up-country, rest assured there are still plenty of people living in the rural villages to make the statement that there are few poor farmers left to be simply false.
That is not to say that all farmers are poor. I know one man who sold his padi land up in Mae Rim some 20 years ago to a wealthy individual looking to build a rural retreat, and then he invested that money in a larger padi land in Samoeng that he then rented out to landless peasants. He has not tilled the land since, although he did get a job with the Forestry Dept. He is clearly rural lower middle class, but he stands out in our village area and is highly respected for his success. And each village seems to have a few such families. But most of the people in the villages remain poor, not poverty stricken certainly, but poor. And I think you all might be surprised as to just how many there are.
Maybe it is because the city folks always seem to speed up when driving through the rural villages that they underestimate the size of the rural population. I always found it strange that they drive their sedans slow with apprehension through the forested and wilder areas but once in the village, despite the presence of barefooted children playing, it is usually pedal to the metal. Is it a show of superiority or is it fear of having to confront the feeling of “there but for the grace of God go I”?
6 Srithanonchai // Jan 19, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Khun Johpa, please have a look at p. 8 of Bangkok Post’s Economic Review, Year-End 2006. There you will find a table on “Employment by Industry.” It lists 35.5 million people as being employed. The agricultural sector accounts for 13.7 million people (39%), while non-agricultural occupations account for 21.8 million people, or 61%.
7 Srithanonchai // Jan 19, 2007 at 6:46 pm
P.S.: The review can be downloaded at http://www.bangkokpost.com/economicreviews.html. The statistics are from the section “Facts and Figures.”
8 Srithanonchai // Jan 19, 2007 at 7:19 pm
P.S. II: Just for a comparison in time > 20 years ago, the picture was quite different. At that time, of the total labor force of 27.6 million people, 66.4% worked in agriculture, 11.4% in industry, and 22.2% in services. These figures are for the wet season (see table 2.3 in Warr, The Thai Economy in Transition).
9 Johpa // Jan 20, 2007 at 10:09 am
I stand corrected as to the percentage employed in agriculture if the data above is indeed true. I suppose my perspective was perhaps blinded by my time in Thailand having been spent, for the greater part, amongst a farming population. And we will just have to agree to disagree as to whether the reported 40% includes “relatively few” poor farmers or a significant number of poor farmers.
10 Chut // Jan 20, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Sufficiency seemed to be almost everything. Last December, we spottedn a “mama cup instant noodle” with a quote saying Pa Saak Dam is sufficiency economy.
Royal initiated projects which asked people to grow, out of their faith, avocado, strawberry and raise foreign fish resemble contract farming for me. Who said they would always grow what they eat.
A list of products that have been distributed and marketedfrom a royal brand include: sprouting brocolli, rainbow trout, savoy cabbage, etc. The project change the pattern of agriculture for community consumption to crash crops contract farming that would feed people in the cities who would consume it.
At the airport, I always consume fresh garden sald from Chiang Mai at one of the outlet at 25-30 baht a plate, wondering if the farmerswill eatsomething like this. Thing chages, they might eat it, abandoning naam prik for iceberg lettuce and chicory zuckerhut.
11 Srithanonchai // Jan 20, 2007 at 8:48 pm
It depends on the conceptions of “farmers” and “poverty,” and the definition of the “poverty line.”
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.