A concern for understanding evolving inequalities in Thai society and economy has been a feature of much scholarship. This has included, for example, work focusing on gender inequalities (e.g. Mills 1997 and 1999, Bell 1992), regional underdevelopment and lagging regions (e.g. Parnwell 1988, Parnwell and Rigg 1996, Krongkaew et al. 1992, Hirsch 1990), the ‘problem’ of Thailand’s hill people (e.g. Wittayapak 2008, Dearden 1995), and generational inequalities (e.g. Ekachai 1990, Funahashi 1996). Bearing in mind the concerns of this study, however, here the focus is squarely on rural-urban inequalities.
Thailand has failed to reduce the rural-urban income gap. Though their economic welfare did progress with the growth of agricultural production and increases in employment opportunities in the non-farm sector, the bulk of Thailand’s poor population continue to be concentrated in the countryside and to work in agriculture. Successive Thai governments have recognised that poverty remains a largely rural phenomenon, making rural poverty an important political issue in Thailand since the mid 1970s (Shigetomi, 2004). As Leinbach and Ulack (2000) observe:
The distribution of wealth has become increasingly inequitable, and a marked differentiation between the traditional rural and modernising urban sectors of society has been observed (Leinbach and Ulack, 2000: 434)
Notwithstanding the government’s apparent recognition that rural poverty remains a key challenge – and has been so for decades – the pattern of development in Thailand seems to conform to the urban bias model of development, in which the development decisions of the government reflect the interests of the urban elites. In the 1960s and 1970s rural areas were neglected by the state elite, which systematically allocated
resources to urban areas, mainly Bangkok, because of the greater efficiency of resource use which was expected to take place here. The government’s emphasis was on large-scale industries that were concentrated around Bangkok and in the Central Plains. A service-led growth strategy further accelerated the expansion of Bangkok as a prime city (Tonguthai, 1987).
There has been a long debate in Thailand about whether we see in the country evidence of an urban bias in development. The Thai government is centralised and Bangkok is the centre of decision-making authority. This has tended to result in an urban-biased, or a Bangkok-biased, development policy. Biases in macro and sectoral policy have promoted the growth of Bangkok. Measures such as agricultural pricing policy, the over-valued exchange rate, investments in urban infrastructure and service, and the government’s emphasis on Bangkok as the country’s industrial centre have accentuated the primacy of Bangkok (Parnwell, 1996). Korff (1989) argues that
Because the strategic groups are city-based, or more precisely, Bangkok- based, given their interests and strategies, they create a Bangkok-based state, which necessarily has the prime objective to stabilise and strengthen the role of Bangkok in society, politics, and economy (Korff, 1989: 50).
The growth of Bangkok has increased inequalities between urban and rural areas, especially between the metropolis and the rest of the nation. The wide and persistent rural-Bangkok income disparities and rapid economic growth in the metropolis have triggered extensive in-migration to Bangkok (Parnwell, 1996). Moreover, Silcock (1967), as long ago as the mid-1960s, was suggesting that low rice prices were a key issue in stimulating diversification of agricultural activity and farm incomes. Even accepting that this may have been advantageous to the rural sector in the longer term, it is hard not to interpret the situation as a classic case of Lipton’s (1977) urban bias. The reduction of regional inequalities in Thailand has been principally viewed in terms of the promotion of urban-based industrial development. Likewise, a reduction in the incidence of poverty and the level of personal income inequalities has been expected to take place as a result of sustained rapid urban-industrial growth (Dixon, 1999).
Figure 3.1 Map of Thailand: Poverty
Figure 3.1 clearly shows the main concentrations of poverty in certain areas/ regions (namely the North East and parts of the North); and second, its concentration beyond those areas of the country where industrialisation has been centred (i.e. Bangkok and the Central Plains).
Table 3.1 The Poor in Thailand 1963-2004 (Percentage of the Population Defined as Poor)
Total North Northeast South Central Bangkok
1963 57 65 74 44 40 28 1969 42 38 68 40 18 11 1976 33 35 46 33 16 12 1981 24 23 36 21 16 4 1986 26 22 41 23 17 5 1988 22 21 35 22 16 3 1990 18 17 28 18 13 2 1992 13 14 22 12 6 1 1994 9.6 8.5 15.7 11.7 6.0 0.8 1996 11.4 11.2 19.4 11.5 5.9 1.3 1998 12.9 9.0 23.2 14.8 7.7 0.6 1999 15.9 10.6 30.8 15.7 6.8 0.2 2000 21 24 35 16 10 1 2004 11 15 16 7 5 1
Sources: National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) figures quoted in Warr 1993: 46, Medhi Krongkaew 1995, Pasuk Phongphaichit and Baker 2000: 96, World Bank 2000, World Bank 2005.
Notes:
1. The National Statistical Office (NSO) only began its two-yearly Socio-economic Survey (SES) in 1975/76; the figures quoted here for 1963 and 1969 are based on alternative data.
2. The poverty figures for 2000 and 2004 and based on the new poverty line
Table 3.2 Population Defined as Poor, By Region, 2000 and 2004 (millions)
2000 2004 Bangkok 0.10 0.11 Central region 1.45 0.76 North 2.63 1.91 Northeast 7.22 3.65 South 1.36 0.66 Whole country 12.76 7.08
Source: World Bank 2005 (Thailand Economic Monitor, November 2005)
Although the data above show that poverty in Thailand has been all but eradicated in Bangkok and the central region, the poor that remain have become increasingly concentrated in the North and Northeast of Thailand. In 2004, almost 80 per cent of the poor were concentrated in these two regions of the country, and these regions are predominantly rural.
Figure 3.2 Growth and Poverty in Thailand 1962-2008
Source: Rigg and Salamanca 2009
The Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 led to a sharp downturn in the economy, and the current global economic depression may also, after a while, be regarded as an equally important historical ‘moment’. However, Thailand has made the transition on the back of a so-called economic ‘miracle’ - from a low-income and developing agricultural economy to a middle income, mixed economy. The country has also become thoroughly integrated and mobile; however, this process of rapid social and economic transformation has not been smooth (Rigg and Salamanca, 2009).