Thailand Trapped: Catch-up Legacies and Contemporary Malaise

Kanchoochat, Veerayooth

doi:10.1017/trn.2018.3

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Through its pattern of oscillation between democracy and dictatorship, the anti-democratic nature of its latest constitution, and doubts as to when even that limited constitution will be enacted, Thailand has repeatedly confounded any expectation that its development status would lead it into a democratic future. Veerayooth's (2018) argument that Thailand's economic growth is impeded by its political oscillation is broadly supported by the findings in this chapter.…”

Section: Modernisation Economic Development and Educationsupporting

confidence: 57%

“…In 2011 Thailand was upgraded by the World Bank to upper middle income status. It is currently regarded as being stuck in the "middle-income trap" (Veerayooth, 2018).…”

Section: Chapter 4 Structural Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…283-284). The country's economic transformation took off in the last quarter of the 20 th century, based on foundations set in the Sarit era, as argued by Veerayooth (2018) and, with different emphasis, by . 88 Baker and Pasuk describe how from the 1970s onwards, Thailand saw rapid urbanisation, enormous increases in GDP, increasing Japanese investment, and the growth of export-oriented manufacturingall of which favoured urban Bangkok, and led to the rise of an entrepreneurial class, including Thaksin.…”

Section: Thailandmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thaksin's emergence was seen as a manifestation of this trend, which Sidel thought the 2006 military coup might interrupt only temporarily. A more recent study(Veerayooth, 2018) sees the Sino-Thai businesspeopleor at least some of them -as part of the establishment upholding the current military rule.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Democratisation in Asia-Pacific Monarchies: Drivers and Impediments

Bogle¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>In the first decade of the 21st century, Bhutan and Tonga enacted reforms which took executive power away from the monarch and placed it the hands of an elected government. Conversely, Thailand and Nepal have faltered in their trajectory towards democracy. Thailand is stuck in a cycle of repression, popular protest, limited democracy, renewed military takeover, and constitutional revision to allow a controlled “democracy.” Nepal has broken out of a similar cycle (although without military rule), at the cost of abolishing its monarchy. This thesis looks at factors, including the monarchy’s role, which contributed to the different outcomes. The study questions Huntington’s theory of the modernising monarch’s dilemma (fear that reform would do the monarch out of a job), and suggests that, on the contrary, a democratising monarch is more likely to retain the throne, albeit with reduced power. This comparative qualitative study is based on research into primary and secondary sources, plus interviews. The thesis found that in Bhutan and Tonga strong leadership of democratisation by Kings Jigme Singye and George V greatly favoured a successful democratic transition. In both Thailand and Nepal, monarchs Bhumibol and Gyanendra resisted a democratic bargain, seeking instead to retain or regain political power, in a context where popular mobilisation and the role of the military were significant in both countries, but with considerable differences. Contrary to Huntington’s theory, monarchs in Thailand and Nepal, in seeking to avoid loss of political ascendancy suffered the opposite, although to differing degrees (one monarchy was disestablished while the other first gained ground but ultimately ceded ground to the military, reversing a pattern of monarchical dominance in the partnership). The thesis concluded that, against a historical background of special status for the monarch as symbol of national unity, and even in the face of unpromising structural conditions, monarchs who used their charisma to promote and lead a move to democracy were a critical factor in whether a transition would be successful, while securing the future of the monarchy for their heirs. Conversely, monarchs who formed strategic alliances with elite groups seeking to preserve their ascendancy, including the military, provided an excuse to autocratic groups for resisting democracy and risked either a reversion to (or retention of) autocratic rule or a transition to a democracy that did not include a place for the monarchy.</p>

show abstract

Section: Modernisation Economic Development and Educationsupporting

confidence: 57%

“…In 2011 Thailand was upgraded by the World Bank to upper middle income status. It is currently regarded as being stuck in the "middle-income trap" (Veerayooth, 2018).…”

Section: Chapter 4 Structural Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Thailandmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Democratisation in Asia-Pacific Monarchies: Drivers and Impediments

Bogle¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evolving State–Business Relations in an Age of Globalisation: An Introduction

Lim

Gomez

Wong

2021

Journal of Contemporary Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Double Dualism, Economic Growth Slowdown, and Falling Income Inequality in Thailand

VECHSURUCK,

PRATOOMCHAT

2024

Asian Development Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thailand has experienced a decline in income inequality coupled with unimpressive economic growth since the end of the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis. This paper uses the structuralist approach to understand how these concurrent economic phenomena have become deeply intertwined. We argue that this intertwining results from Thailand’s economic structure, manifesting two types of dualism: (i) the dualism of the formal–informal sectors and (ii) the dualism of the dynamic–stagnant sectors. A decline in the informal sector in recent years coincides with a decrease in income inequality. Further, the second type of dualism between the dynamic and stagnant sectors has emerged since 2000. The stagnant sectors’ employment share has grown faster than that of the dynamic sectors, resulting in a slowdown in economic growth and less inequality. The decline of the informal sector and the rise of the stagnant sectors are the primary engines weighing down economic growth and reducing income inequality in Thailand.

show abstract

Thailand Trapped: Catch-up Legacies and Contemporary Malaise

Cited by 3 publications

References 44 publications

Democratisation in Asia-Pacific Monarchies: Drivers and Impediments

Democratisation in Asia-Pacific Monarchies: Drivers and Impediments

Evolving State–Business Relations in an Age of Globalisation: An Introduction

Double Dualism, Economic Growth Slowdown, and Falling Income Inequality in Thailand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About