96 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

5.1 Introduction

Performance management reform in the Thai public sector was first addressed formally in the Fifth National Economic and Social Development Plan (1982–1986). The urgency of efficiency and effectiveness improvement in the public sector was clearly seen after evidence demonstrated that economic development was difficult to implement without the administration and performance management reform. Additionally, the economic crisis facing Thailand during 1997 clearly demonstrated the huge costs related to poor economic management, and increasing demands on the budget require Thailand “to do more with less” (Nimmanahaeminda, 2000).

Presently, the key central government agencies involved with performance management in the public sector at the organizational level include the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC), the Bureau of the Budget, and the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB). Many main initiatives have been implemented in order to bring about more effective and efficient public service delivery in the Thai public sector.

5.2 History of Performance Management

5.2.1 National Economic and Social Development Plans

The National Economic and Social Development Plan is a 5-year national plan formulated by the NESDB, which is the central planning agency of Thailand. This 5-year national plan is prepared by government officials at the NESDB through a participation process with stakeholders, then it is submitted to the Cabinet through its Board1 to get approval. The first four national plans merely focused on the economic growth aspect and short-term problem solving, and government administrative reforms were overlooked (Fifth National Economic and Social Development Plan, 364). Starting from the Fifth National Plan (1982–1986) to the Tenth National Plan (2007–2011), public management reform was formulated in a separate section of the Plan. Table 5.1 illustrates a summary of contents related to performance management in the National Development Plans.

The focus of the administrative reform of the Fifth and Sixth National Plans was on coordination among central agencies relating to functional, budgeting, and personnel plans at the national level, collaboration among government agencies to reduce duplication and increase efficiency of operation, changing line-item budgeting to performance budgeting, and law and regulation modernization. The reform indicated in the Sixth National Plan relating to laws and regulation modernization was not fulfilled, but carried out in the Seventh Plan which included law modernization.

The Eighth National Plan (1997–2001) adopted a new paradigm to national development by shifting from an economic growth orientation toward a people-centered development. To achieve the objectives, the guidelines of the administrative development included efficiency improvement of central government agencies, process modernization based on the area-functions-participation system, people participation, and evaluation using databases and indicators.

The Ninth National Plan (2002–2006) adopted the philosophy of economic sufficiency emphasizing the middle path—self-support and self-reliance as well as good governance at all levels

1The National Economic and Social Development Board is composed of 15 economic and social experts, including the heads of the central agencies in the public sector, e.g., governor of the Bank of Thailand and the director of the Bureau of the Budget. Besides formulating the national plan, the NESDB has a duty to monitor and evaluate the plan.

©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC