74 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
All decisions regarding municipal personnel are now largely under the power of the mayors. The strong vertical connections between municipal officials and officials at central government, especially in DOLA, that were previously crucial for officials gaining their preferred jobs, are no longer relevant. Now, municipal officials are pretty much on their own and dependent on mayors.44
3.6 Local Governments Reaching Out to Local Community
One of the major goals of decentralization policy is to encourage public participation and to strengthen democracy at the grassroots level. Critics of decentralization in Thailand have worried that the result, instead, would be that local power brokers would boost their influence. In 1988, the MOI issued an order to all local governments to encourage, organize, recognize, and support Cooperative Community Groups (CCGs) in local areas. CCGs are local groups of residents formally recognized by the local government as representatives of their communities. CCGs can be organized at local governments’ behest or at the request of the groups themselves. (An approximate number of members is from 200 to 2000.) The main objective of the CCG is to encourage community groups to be strong and depend on themselves as much as they possibly can in solving their own problems. CCGs will, it is hoped, try to take care of their own needs and problems before going to local governments to seek help. Many local governments have responded to the ministry’s recommendations in part in the hope that CCGs may relieve local governments’ workloads without increasing their financial burdens. Local politicians also see in CCGs a means of boosting their support bases.
The new constitution promotes popular participation, and encourages a strong civil society and democratic decentralization as a means to stimulate local economies, strengthen local social fabrics, and promote good governance. Central government has launched a variety of initiatives consistent with these goals. These schemes include CCGs, the Village Fund, the Economic Stimulation Fund, the One-Tambon One-Product plan (OTOP), and the Municipal Development Fund. In general, “messengers” between municipal residents in CCGs and municipal governments. CCG leaders are often the first to learn of problems such as flooding or electrical failures and bring these to the attention of municipal offices. CCGs apparently make municipal residents feel closer to the municipal government. As a result, they are more likely to visit municipal offices.
Local governments are required to encourage local citizens’ participation in the process of generating annual and 5-year municipal plans. To do so, some local government units survey residents on their needs and their perceptions of existing local public services. CCGs are not intended to enjoy any corporatist status as the sole representatives of their communities. Accordingly, local politicians and officials employ institutions such as the “cof fee assembly” (sapha kafae). These are usually small and informal local cafes where active local residents gather and discuss what is going on in the municipal area. Municipal politicians and officials apparently regard them as major sources of information. Even mayors may attend these coffee assemblies every few days to listen to the talk and hear opinions as well as to give their perspectives on local problems to the locals. A more formal alternative that also affords an opportunity for politicians and officials to show their willingness to listen to local residents is a government-organized public forum. Contributing to a diminished gap between citizens and their leaders is the greater openness of local assembly meetings. These are now often broadcast over the radio.
44 Chandra-nuj Mahakanjana (2004: 105–20).
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Decentralization and Local Governance in Thailand 75
Numbers of municipal governments have now formed a Municipal Development Committee responsible for developing municipal development plans. It is composed of municipal politicians and officials, heads of other levels of government within the province, and others interested and active in community development activities, usually CCG leaders. After the committee approves a draft proposal, the municipality organizes a public forum at which it presents the plan and solicits feedback before the plan is implemented.
Local residents are encouraged to try to help themselves, reducing burdens on municipal offices and, perhaps, making them more efficient and effective in responding to local needs. Politicians gain as a result. The CCGs that foster participation and a degree of self-reliance are instruments available to support politicians’ elections. CCGs also create opportunities for citizens to build networks and foster trust.
Political participation involves a long-term learning process. As people learn what rights they have to try to influence municipal governments through democratic means, they need channels of access to the municipal government. State institutions may have unintended effects on society. Municipal governments have tried to co-opt local communities to improve service delivery and to enhance their political fortunes, and their personal business interests. As a result, however, the closer interaction with municipal governments engenders important changes within local communities themselves. They become more familiar with municipal political dynamics and participatory democracy.
3.7 Conclusion
This chapter illustrates the development of decentralization policy and the current surge of decentralization, and different forms of local government in Thailand, including several ongoing issues that follow the decentralization policy. Decentralization in Thailand has made significant impacts on local governments all over the country. The new local electoral system, which is a strong executive system, fiscal decentralization, transferred responsibilities from central government, limited spending on personnel, and the new local personnel system, have changed the local political and administrative atmosphere during the past 10 years. Thailand’s experience on decentralization has taught us that rapid decentralization policy implementation force direct local level participation and cooperation between local communities and local governments to some extent. However, the tremendous burden on local governments as a result of rapid decentralization policy may delay local level development process and democratization as a whole if the policy implementation is not done carefully enough to suit Thailand’s local socio-political context.
References
Achakorn, W. 2004. Political Process of Decentralization Policy in Thailand: The Formation of The Tambon Council and Tambon Administrative Organization Act of 1994. MA thesis, Kyoto University.
———.2005. A Decade of Decentralization in Thailand. (In Thai.) King Prajadhipok’s Institute Journal 3(2): 43–60 (Nonthaburi: King Prajadhipok’s Institute).
———.2005a. Provincial Administrative Organization Election and Their Effect on the Power Structure in a Province: Case Studies in Buriram and Pathum Thani, Proceedings of the 7th Kyoto University International Symposium: Coexistence with Nature in a “Glocalizing” World-Field Science Perspectives in Bangkok, November 23–25, 2005: 267–76.
———.2006. Decentralization and its Effect on Provincial Political Power in Thailand. Asian and African Area Studies 6(2): 454–70.
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
76 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
———. 2007. Decentralization in Thailand, 1992–2006: Its Effects on Local Politics and Administration. Doctoral dissertation, Kyoto University.
Ammar, S. 2001. Study of Rural Asia: Volume 5 The Evolving Roles of the State, Private, and Local Actors in Rural Asia (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Amorn, R. 1995. Kankrajai amnat ti pidplad lae samsak kong mahadthai lae nakkanmuang. Warasarn Sukhothai thammathirat 8(2): 18–21.
Anek, L. 1992. Business Associations and the New Political Economy of Thailand (Boulder, CO: Westview Press). Aree Wong-araya, a former Permanent Secretary of the Interior Ministry, Interview on August 23, 2003 at
his Lardpraw residence.
Arghiros, D. 2001. Democracy, Development and Decentralization in Provincial Thailand (Surrey: Curzon Press).
Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Act of 1985.
Chai-anan, S. 1987. Panhar kanpattana tang kanmuang kong thai (Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press).
———.1988 Kanprabprung krasuang tabuang krom (Bangkok: Master Press).
———.1990. Rat kab sangkom (Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press).
———.1995.100 pi hang kanpatiroup rabob rachakan wiwattanakankong amnat rat lae amnat kanmuang
(Bangkok: Sataban nayobai sueksa).
Chandranuj, M. 2004. Municipal Government, Social Capital, and Decentralization in Thailand. Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University.
Decentralization Plan and Procedure Acts of 1999. (Thailand).
Department of Local Administration, Ministry of Interior. Thailand (October 2007).
Diamond, L. 1999. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (Baltimore, MA: The Johns Hopkins University Press).
Hutchcroft, P.D. 2000. The Philippines Constitution of 1987.
———. 2001. Centralization and Decentralization in Administrative and Politics: Assessing Territorial Dimensions of Authority and Power. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration
14(1): 22–53.
Japan International Cooperation Agency, 2001.
Khien,T. 1993. Wikritakan kanmuang Thai: karani prutsapha mahawippayok po.so. 2535 (Bangkok: Matichon). King Prajadhipok’s Institute. 2004. Than khomun kanluektang nayok orbochor (Bangkok: College of Local
Government Development).
Likhit, T. 1974. Kanpokkrong ton eang. Warasan sitthi lae seripap 1(6): 6–7. Likhit, D. 1986. Kwamkhid seri (Bangkok: Prae Pittaya).
Litvack, J., Ahmad, J. and Bird, R. 1998. Rethinking Decentralization in Developing Countries (Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development).
Manor, J. 1999. The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization (Washington, DC: The World Bank). Mawhood, P. 1993. Local Government in the Third World: The Experience of Decentralization in Tropical
Africa, 2nd ed. (Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa).
Morell, D. and Samudavanija, C. 1981. Political Conflict in Thailand: Reform, Reaction, Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschalager, Gunn & Hain).
Naruemon T. and Disthaphichai, J. 2000. Kabounkan phur rattathammanoon chabab prachachon lae kanpatiroopkanmuang, in Phasuk Phongphaijit lae kana, Witheeshewit Witeesoo: Kabounkan prachachon roumsamai (Chiang Mai: Traswin Silk Worm Book).
Nelson, M.H. 1998. Central Authority and Local Democratization in Thailand (Bangkok: White Lotus).
———. 2002. Thailand: Problem with Decentralization? in Decentralization and Local Government in Thailand, 459–502 (College of Local Government Development) (Nonthaburi: King Prajadhipok’s Institute).
Pattaya City Administration Organization Act of 1978.
Pattaya City Administrative Organization Act of 1999.
Parichart S. 1996. Preabteab nayobai boriharn prathet 4 rattaban (Bangkok: Sukhum lae bud).
Phattana P. 1994. Decentralization: Trend and Feasibility Studies in Election of Provincial Governor. MA thesis in politics and government, Thammasat University.
Phornsak P. 2001. Rattaban Phasom (Bangkok: Thai Association of Political Science).
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Decentralization and Local Governance in Thailand 77
Pitch P. 2005. Kan krachai amnat chak sunklang. Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Academic Seminar organized by Faculty of Economic, Thammasat University on 14–15 June 2005, pp. 13–15 (Bangkok: Faculty of Economic).
Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, PREM Note, September 2000, No. 43. Public Sector Group of World Bank.
Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, Portfolio Review, PREMPS, 1998. Public Sector Group of World Bank.
Prathan S. and Nopphawan, C. 1997. Governmental Policy on Local Government in Thammasat Journal 23(2): 149–155.
Provincial Administration Organization Act of 1955.
Provincial Administration Organization Act of 1997.
Riggs, F.W. 1966. Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity (Honolulu, HI: East-West Center Press).
Rondinelli, D.A. 1981. Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Theory and Practice in Developing Countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences 47(2): 133–45.
Sanitary District Act of 1952.
Smith, B.C. 1985. Decentralization: The Territorial Diversion of the State (London: George Allen & Unwin). Somchart T. 1995. MPs’ Budget. Ratthasatsan 43(7): 7.
Somsak P. 1995. Provincial Development Budget (MP Budget) and the necessities of rural areas. MA thesis, Thammasat University.
Tamada, Y. 1991. Ittiphon and Amnat: An Informal Aspect of Thai Politics. Southeast Asian Studies 28(4): 455–66.
———. 2002. Shrinking Political Power of the Thai Military in the 1990s. Asian and African Area Studies 2002(2): 120–72.
Tambon Council and Tambon Administrative Organization Act of 1994.
Tanet, C. 1994. Lueaktang phuwa (Chiang Mai: krongkan kansueksa kanpokkrong thongthin kana sangkhomsat mahawittayalai Chiang Mai).
———.1995. Poet paden lueaktang phuwa (Chiang Mai: krongkan kansueksa kanpokkrong thongthin kana sangkhomsat mahawittayalai Chiang Mai).
———.1997. Kanpakkrong muang nai sangkhom Thai: karani Chiang Mai 7 sattawat (Chiang Mai: krongkankansueksa kanpokkrong thongthinkana sangkhomsat mahawittayalai Chiang Mai).
———.2002. 100 pi kanpokkrong thongthin Thai, 5th ed. (Bangkok: Kopfai).
Tanet, C. Chieng Mai University’s Associate Professor, Interview on August 18, 2003, at Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
Tet, B. 1989. Kanpokkrong rabob thesaphiban kong prathet Siam (Bangkok: Thammasat University Press). Thai Congress Working Document 1997.
Thailand’s 1991 Constitutions of Thailand (fourth amendment) September 10, 1992. Thailand Local Personnel Administration Act of 1999.
Thailand Ministry of Interior’s order No. 802/1992, dated October 28, 1992. Thailand Municipal Act of 1953.
Thailand Municipality Act of 2000.
Thailand National Public Administration Act of 1991. The Revolutionary Council Order Number 326.
Trakun M. 1994. Sapha Tambon (Bangkok: Policy Studies Institute). Wilson, D.A. 1962. Politics in Thailand. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC