(Image source)
The announcement by the World Bank last week that Thailand has moved into the upper-middle income category is the culmination of a sustained period of economic growth, with profound social significance. GDP per capita data for Thailand (and with Indonesia and China added for comparison) paints a compelling picture. (You can create your own graphs on all sorts of social and economic measure here.)
According to Michael Spence’s The Next Convergence Thailand is one of only 13 developing countries that have “managed to grow for twenty-five years or more at an average rate of 7 percent of more” (54). Thailand achieved this between 1960 and 1997. As the graph (below) of Thailand’s annual GDP growth rate shows, both the Asias financial crisis and the GFC sent the Thai economy backwards but healthy growth rates were quickly resumed.
An economy growing at an average of 7% per year will double in size in about 10 years. At this rate Thailand will have moved into the World Bank’s high income category in less than 20 years. Economic growth isn’t everything, and some will point to the social, environmental and cultural costs of Thailand’s modern transformation. But let’s not lose signs of some of Thailand’s great successes, despite some of the obvious failings in its political system:
- In 1988 the poverty rate (using Thailand’s poverty line) was 42 percent; in 2009 it was about 8 percent.
- In 1960, one in seven children died before reaching the age of five. In other words, most parents (especially in rural Thailand) experienced holding held a dead child in their arms. In 2009 the rate was about one in 77.
- Over the same period life expectancy at birth has increased 14 years for men and 16 years for women. (All data are from here.)
These are dramatic successes and they highlight Thailand’s capacity for ongoing economic and social development. However, there is nothing inevitable about the path from an upper-middle income country to a high income country. Thailand faces some important challenges. Domestic consumption needs to be strengthened to balance out some of the heavy dependence on exports; the quality of education needs to be improved so that Thailand can increase its productivity as its low-wage advantages evaporate; and stark socio-economic disparity must be addressed so the benefits of growth are more evenly spread. As Michael Spence writes:
Distribution, as well as growth, matters. Emerging economies still need to manage better their growing domestic tensions due to rising income inequality and uneven access to basic services. A failure on this front would derail their domestic and regional growth dynamics. Among emerging economies and their governments, this is better understood today. Distributional aspects of growth strategy are firmly placed on emerging countries’ policy agenda. (188)
We will soon have a clearer idea how firmy it is on Yingluck’s agenda.



The income parity charts should also included so show the gap between high and low income earners.
Quality comment or not?
9
0
Who’s the wealthiest man in Thailand?
Quality comment or not?
0
1
Disc 1. I have to agree. No comment on the levels of income disparity which are amongst some of the severest in South East Asia. The only reference to’ regional growth’ and that it is ‘better understood today’. Yet in Thailand what is understood and what is actually put in place are entirely different things. Those in power both politically and economically know what needs to be done to create sustainable growth its just they are not willing to do it as it means they would have to SHARE the enormous wealth they make off the backs of lower class Thais. Business in Thailand is a family affair where those that have the power to enact change refuse to do so as they fear the loss of their highly lucrative ‘patronage status’.
Quality comment or not?
4
2
From the Council on Foregin Relations:
Quality comment or not?
5
0
Seems like Thailand is facing the same problems that Malaysia is facing – the Middle Income Trap.
Malaysia’s problem is that the political leadership cannot define the national interest.
Hope that Thailand has leaders like that of Hawke/Keating that can define the national interest and sell the idea of painful but beneficial structural reforms and implement them wisely.
Quality comment or not?
1
0
There are not as good data on income disparity, and it is not measured annually.
The GINI coefficient is the most widely used one. Ratings are between 0 and 100 where 0 is perfect equality. So the higher number the more inequality.
Thailand: 42
Malaysia: 49.2
Indonesia: 34.3
China: 46.9
Singapore: 42.5
United States: 40.8
Australia: 35.2
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
Quality comment or not?
1
0