Performance Management Reforms in Thailand 99

of society. The administrative reforms focused on size and structure streamlining, adjusting the roles of the public sector to be compatible with a new development approach, improving reliable management information systems, and modernizing the budget and legal systems. Other strategies were involved with the prevention of corruption, development of check and balance mechanisms, and promotion of corporate good governance in the private sector.

The objectives of the Tenth National Plan (2007–2011) were to strengthen the administrative structures, mechanisms, and processes based on good governance. The guidelines for supporting good governance include supporting and developing good democratic and governance culture to be a part of the Thai way of life, strengthening the participation of civil society, building up the public sector and state enterprises to be more efficient, decentralizing the authority to regional and local administration, reforming laws and regulations related to economic and social development for the sake of the balance of development benefits allocation.

In summary, performance management reforms emphasized in the National Development Plans include the following important issues: organization and work procedure improvement, budgeting system modernization, legal reform, and evaluation systems based on good governance principle.

5.2.2 Master Plan of Government Administrative Reform

In 1997, before Thailand’s economic crisis, the first Government Administrative Reform Plan (1997–2001) was formulated in an attempt to improve performance management reform in the Thai public sector. The Plan included roles, mission, size, and work procedures improvement. The need for government structure reorganization to be consistent with the new roles and missions was mentioned in the plan. In addition, autonomous public organizations (POs) and budget improvement were also presented in this plan. Table 5.2 shows a summary of the Master Plan of Government Administrative Reform.

In May 1999, after the economic crisis, the government launched the Public Sector Management Reform Plan, which provided the government’s vision for institutional change. This reform program had three key objectives: strengthening performance-based resource management by focusing on outcomes, improving service delivery by outsourcing, restructuring, or decentralizing government activities and strengthening accountability (Nimmanahaeminda, 2000). The implementation of these reforms received technical assistance from a Public Sector Reform Loan from the World Bank (Luangpenthong & Bhaopichitr, 2002).

More recently, the OPDC of Thailand, the agency established with responsibility for government administrative reform, issued the Strategic Plan for Thai Government Development (2003–2007). There were four main objectives of this strategic plan (Office of the Public Sector Development Commission Thailand, 2006): better service quality, rightsizing, fiscal reform, and high performance.

In the following section, we first review organizational performance management reform and in the latter section, we focus on performance budget reform. All these reforms were used as a means to increase service quality and performance in Thai public sector management.

5.3Performance Management Reform: A Move Toward High Performance Organizations

To improve public sector organizations to be high performance organizations is one of the major objectives in the Strategic Plan for the Thai Government Development Administrative Reform

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Plan. A high performance organization in this chapter means “an agile organization which can deliver sustainable leadership results and has less trouble in responding to external pressures” (i.e., Light, 2005; McGee, 2004; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). In order to implement reform toward high performance organizations in the public sector, the relevant measures are organizational restructuring to increase autonomy, process improvement using information technology, knowledge management, and performance agreement (Bray & Konsynski, 2007; Chawla & Berman, 1995).

5.3.1 Organization Restructuring to Increase Autonomy

In the past, there were only two main types of organizations in the Thai public sector, government agencies and the state enterprises. Because of the rapidly changing environment and the limitations of the traditional characteristics of public sector organizations, the government introduced other flexible types of organizations to increase autonomy and performance in the public sector. At present there are many kinds of public agencies in the Thai public sector, ranging from the lowest level to the highest level of autonomy, as follows: government agencies, service delivery units (SDUs), POs, autonomous organizations, state enterprises, public limited company, and independent agencies under the constitution. Figure 5.1 presents the different types of organizations in the Thai public sector.

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Figure 5.1 Different types of organizations in the Thai public sector.

In 2005, the Office of the Prime Minister issued regulations about SDUs in order to support some functions that the government needed to perform internally and to maximize efficiency in these services SDUs are quasi-autonomous divisions under a department. The key characteristics of SDUs are: (1) service oriented, they can charge for services from mother organizations or customers, but they do not seek profit; (2) performing under the outlined policy; (3) linked and accountable to the mother organization; (4) required to have a clear result measurement; (5) a suitable size separated from the mother organization; (6) granted autonomy in issuing their own regulations related to budgeting, personnel, and other administrative matters. At present, there are five pilot agencies: the Royal Thai Mint, Printing Bureau, the Institution of Good Governance Promotion, Art and Cultural Museums, and Government laboratories (OPDC, 2006).

POs were established under the Public Organization Act, 1999. POs have juridical status but not bureaucratic status. The characteristics of a PO are (1) a public agency, but not government agency or state enterprise; (2) set up for public services; (3) not profit oriented; (4) granted autonomy to set up its own personnel system and financial management; (5) governed by an executive committee; (6) required to have clear reporting and evaluation systems as prescribed by the Council of Ministries; and (7) not subject to the enforcement of laws concerning labor protection, labor relations, social insurance, and monetary compensation.

For example, after the economic crisis in 1997, Banpaew Hospital, a public hospital, had changed its organizational structure from an agency reporting to the Ministry of Public Health to being a public autonomous hospital, as specified in the agreement between the Asian Development Bank as the creditor, and Thailand as the debtor. During 2003–2006, 12 POs were established, including the Agricultural Research Development Agency, the Energy Fund Administration Institute, and the Asset Capitalization Bureau (OPDC, 2006).

Autonomous organizations are similar to POs, but these organizations are established by their own Act. They are both a juridical entity and have autonomous administrative systems with the status of non-government agencies. They report directly to the minister. They can generate their own income to use within their organizations, without sending any of it back to the Ministry of Finance. Autonomous universities are examples of autonomous organization that are set up to allow universities to have more autonomy and flexibility in their administration. Four pioneering autonomous universities were established (i.e., Suranaree University of Technology in 1990, Walailuck University in 1992, Mae Fah Luang University in 1998, and King’s Mongkut University of Technology Thonburi in 1998).

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC