In the lead up to the Thai election I thought it would be useful to look at some of the key policy platforms of the major parties. As a start I have started to compiled (with generous help from a colleague in Thailand) the major policies relating to agriculture and rural development. The information has been taken from party websites and other statements of party policy. I make no claim that this summary is complete or perfectly accurate so please suggest any amendments.
Democrats
• Invest 300,000 million baht (over five years) in a national expansion of irrigation.
• 6000 million baht per year for crop insurance against natural disasters.
• Price insurance for crops for alternative energy (ethanol).
• A 1-2 million baht sufficiency economy fund for each tambon.
The irrigation expansion is a big ticket item, but will only be attractive to farmers in some areas. The sufficiency economy fund is trivial but who needs money for sufficiency economy?
Phalang Prachachon (PPP)
• One Tambon One Product (OTOP) scheme;
• Promote Thai produce on international markets;
• Village Fund;
• “SML” – a development grants scheme whereby the level of grant depends on the size of the village (small, medium or large);
• “Above ground” lottery.
This looks like a steady-as-she-goes Thai Rak Thai package.
Phua Phaendin
• Irrigation improvements for sufficiency water management;
• Crop price insurance;
• Promote local industry and promote Thai brands on international markets;
• Develop local livelihoods (yuu di kin di);
• Village Fund;
• SML scheme.
Not so different from PPP
Matchimathipatai
• One million cow program – part 2.
• Increase the value of agricultural production.
• Price insurance for jasmine rice
• Promote seven types of livestock production (including provision for more tourist friendly cock fighting!)
• Plant forest to produce timber for small scale electricity production
• Urgently grant rights to agricultural land
• All villages must have roads and water supply.
• 9 million ponds within 4 years.
• Debt repayment moratorium for 3 years for farmers and public servants.
• Establish fund to support agricultural processing in northern Thailand.
• Support for local women’s groups.
• Establish a council for upland minority groups to improve their livelihoods.
Some interesting, and bizarre, initiatives here. They appear to be trying to target some of the more marginal and disadvantaged sections of the rural population.
Chart Thai
• Develop 25 major watersheds for sufficiency water management
• Paved roads (without dust) for every village
• Establish soil bank
• Rice price insurance
• Implement community forest bill
• Establish farmer’s council
• Reform cooperatives law to increase the role of members
• Insurance for agricultural production
• Provincial seed and plant variety banks
• Pension for farmers of 500 baht per month
• Urgently solve farmer debt problem.
• 3 year debt moratorium
• Production inputs fund of 500,000 in each village
Comment: Like Matchimatipatai this is a wide-ranging program. The pension and production inputs fund are likely to be attractive to a good number of voters.
7 responses so far ↓
1 thai folitics, food and fiction // Nov 19, 2007 at 10:57 pm
They (populist promises to the villagers/farmers) are all essentially similar. But the party that can articulate their populist policies with convincing passion should be able to win the most votes.
One of these days a Thai Hugo Chavez will rise with that convincing passion, vowing to deliver the Thai poor to a promised Eden with land to till for everyone, free health care for all, and with every Thai free from debt slavery.
If a populist coup can occur in Venezuela, why NOT Thailand?
2 Restorationist // Nov 20, 2007 at 7:17 am
These policies really do show how bankrupt these parties are for ideas. Irrigation – ah, um, Isarn Khioew? or USAID programs in the 1950s. Hang all the issues about salt intrusion and all the other existing problems with irrigation…. And, then the populist policies essentially plagiarized from TRT. There are no Einsteins at work here. Or is it that the parties have simply decided that there is no point to thinking up policies as coalition government is going to result and then it will be the horse-trading of the past.
3 Bovine populism // Nov 20, 2007 at 7:19 am
[...] XHTML ← Thailand’s rural development policy choices [...]
4 jonfernquest // Nov 20, 2007 at 9:09 pm
These election policies don’t really seem to constitute policies or relate to long-term national goals.
That is ,they seem to address the symptom not the underlying problem. For example, farmers are in debt and they need help in the short-term so their families can survive and prosper, but in the long-run whatever debt producing activity they are engaging in, is not sustainable and they have to shift to some other activity.
If what Andrew said in a previous post is true and farmers are becoming more reliant on urban supplements to their income, then how to bootstrap members of the family skillwise into the urban workforce seems important, so rural policy is actually not just about spending money in rural areas, but ***helping the rural making inroads into the urban***. The Japanese inspired OTOP, HMK’s royal projects, and the Queen’s handicrafts initiatives, are all inspired examples of this sort of thing. Scholarships for rural kids to continue their studies since many are still pulled out of schools extremely early. Also incentives for Bangkok businesses to relocate operations to the provinces. For example, Chiang Rai has one of the most vibrant artists communities in the nation and is a natural location for the design industry.
5 Teth // Nov 21, 2007 at 1:39 am
Interesting ideas, Jon. I, personally, think Thailand is in need of an urban migration scheme as a means of reaching out to the rural poor. Why are the provinces always relatively stagnant economically when compared to Bangkok and why do the majority of the Thai population live in those areas? One reason is because rural areas lack adequate infrastructure for prosperity to reach. Second, some rural areas lack any sort of economic incentive to be prosperous yet is home to the bulk of the population (eg Isaan). Third, rural areas generally lack the resources needed for competitiveness when compared to urban areas (schools, hospitals, etc).
Further more, when comparing the Thai rural areas to Western ones, one of the most striking differences is the farmer. The Thai farmer has much less land than the Western one, and it is harder to find “specialists” in Thai agriculture: there is no one making cheese or exquisite wines, no regional specialties that are sought after, etc. Once again, I see this as a problem of too many people. From a supply-demand point of view, there are simply too many farmers and no current development plan seems to address this. I am sure everyone is aware of this fact, but simply hope to gain the rural vote whilst waiting for the growth is trickle down.
Therefore, I believe that a policy that encourages centralization and urbanization is a good one. There needs to be convenient transport links between urban population centers: motorways and high speed railways. Urban areas should be given special administrative status so as to provide independent (and presumably better) town planning, transport infrastructure, housing initiatives, schools, public parks, libraries, museums, hospitals, etc. for urban areas.
The increased transportation efficiency between urban centers will no doubt generate increased investment in those urban centers, which creates jobs and draws people towards the cities. Also, exploitation of a city’s unique identity, like Chiang Rai’s art scene as Jon mentioned, should also encourage this growth. Improved municipal management will encourage more to permanently move into the cities. In essence, the city provides them with jobs, a good standard of living, better education for their children, etc.
Although this may seem as a policy to increase the urban/rural divide, in a similar vein to Thaksin’s dual track policies, we also focus on the rural side of things. Land reform must be implemented so that those who remain farmers will be able to make a proper living, unlike the subsistence farming many practice. Etc etc etc.
This is a first draft of my ideas, so destroy it if you like. I hope to generate some debate here.
6 Dickie Simpkins // Nov 21, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Teth,
Great post.
From what I gather, land redistibution, etc. tend to be bad ideas in the long run.
Subsidies are a good short-term solution.
But the main thing is that Thailand has only 1 real ‘urban’ center, which is Bangkok.
Chiang mai and previously Hatyai were developing, but they can’t be called an urban center compared to the monstrosity of Bangkok.
Korat is and has been growing. The fact remains is that within the Northeast, there needs to be urban development, akin to Bangkok. By that I actually mean a city of 4-8 million people. It can be the center of Isan trade, items from OTOP, rice, Isan music, etc. can be centered from there. In other words, a Thai city without the major influence of Chinese art but a very Farm-Thai style. Urban in the style of Houston and Dallas… not NYC or LA.
Of course, this idea is blasphemous, and will be shot down, then eaten up by Bangkok cannibalists to whom will never accept that any city outside Bangkok should develop except for being a ‘tourist’ location.
7 jonfernquest // Nov 21, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“…it is harder to find “specialists” in Thai agriculture: there is no one making cheese or exquisite wines…”
A couple years back I happened to accidentally see and attend a Thai wine festival at the National Stadium next to Mah Boonkrawng.
I was completely amazed by the acres of exhibition boothes. I could only sample a few of these hundreds of wines made by Thai winemakers, but my favorite was a home brew Satoh brand by some young people in Isan.
There are a lot of innovative Thai entrepreneurs in the food industry, like these two young women and their desert idea. More articles on Thai entrepreneurship.
“There needs to be convenient transport links between urban population centers: motorways and high speed railways. …”
Yes, I don’t mind Morchit and the overnight bus back to Chiang Rai, because Sombat tours actually has bunk beds you can reserve on the floor of the bus.
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.