Governance and Poverty Reduction in Thailand

Pornpen Vora Sittha

Graduate School of Development Economics, National Institute of Development Administration.

DOI: 10.4236/me.2012.35064                

Abstract

The objective of this study is to find out how Thailand achieves her economic growth along with poverty reduction without good governance practice. The relationships among economic growth, poverty indicators and governance indi- cators are computed by using Pearson’s correlation. The computed results show that the poverty reduction in Thailand is achieved through populist policies which are exercised with low quality of governance, not through growth. It sup- ports general belief that the “pro-poor growth” policy alone without good governance performance is insufficient for enhancing poverty reduction equally. A strategy for reducing poverty and income inequality for Thailand is not to en- hance economic growth but to promote major improvements in governance especially in variable that reflect the per- ception in three governance composite indicators namely Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence, and Rule of Law.

Keywords

Governance; Growth; Poverty; Income Inequality; Governance and Poverty Reduction; Thailand

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	N. Girishankar, L. Hammergren, M. Holmes, et al., “Go- ver-nance and Poverty Reduction,” Draft for Comments within the World Bank and from Comments Provided at PRSP Workshops, April 2001, p. 2.
[2]	M. G. Martin, (2006) “Governance and Poverty Reduc- tion: Paths of Connection,” Trocaire Develop-ment Re- view, Dubin, p. 35.
[3]	D. Kaufmann, A. Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, “The World- wide Governance Indicators, Me-thodology and Analytical Issues,” Policy Research Working Paper 5430 for the World Bank Development Research Group, Macroeco- nomics and Growth Team, September 2010.
[4]	M. Krongkaew, S. Chamnivickorn and I. Nitithanprapas, “Economic Growth, Employment, and Poverty Reduction linkages: The Case of Thailand,” Issues in Employment and Poverty Discussion Paper 20, January 2006, pp. 27- 30.
[5]	E. Chan-lett-Avery, “Political Turmoil in Thailand and US Interests,” CRS Report for Congress, Prepared for Mem- bers and Com-mittees of Congress, 26 May 2009, pp. 1-5.
[6]	Asian Devel-opment Bank, “ADB Annual Report,” ISSN 306-8370 (print), April 2000.
[7]	National Economic and Social Development Board, “Good Governance Strategies,” Thailand’s 9th National Economic and Social Development Plan 2002-2006, Chapter 2, 2002.
[8]	B. Dressel, “Strengthening Governance through Constitu- tional Reform, The Governance Brief (ADB),” A Quar- terly Publication Capacity Development and Governance Division Regional and Sustainable Development Depart- ment, No. 13, 2005.
[9]	D. Thandee, “Good Governance in Thailand: Limitations and Challenges,” Proceedings of the Seminar on Good Governance, Economy, Education, Culture and Tourism of Thailand and Korea, The Institute of East Asian Stud- ies of Thammasat University, Khlong Nueng, 10-11 Feb- ruary 2010, pp. 14-18.
[10]	National Economic and Social Development Board, “Thailand’s 9th National Economic and Social Develop- ment Plan 2002-2006,” Chapter 2, and “Thailand’s 10th National Economic and Social Development Plan 2007- 2011,” Chapters 1 and 6.
[11]	S. Maisrikrod, “Civil Society, Accountability and Gov- ernance in Thailand: A Dim Case of Participatory De- mocracy,” Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008, pp. 97-98,
[12]	P. Phongpaichit, “Good Governance: Thailand’s Experi- ence,” Paper for Asia Pacific Finance Association (APFA) Annual Conference, July 2001.
[13]	D. Thandee, “Good Governance in Thailand: Limitations and Challenges,” op.cit., pp. 15-16.
[14]	S. Maisrikrod, “Civil Society, Accountability and Gov- ernance in Thailand: A Dim Case of Participatory De- mocracy,” op.cit., pp. 97-114.
[15]	E. Chanlett-Avery, “Political Turmoil in Thailand and US Interests,” op. cit., p. 1.
[16]	R. Eastwood and M. Lipton, “Pro-Poor Growth and Pro- Growth Poverty Reduction: Meaning, Evidence and Pol- icy Implications,” Asian De-velopment Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2001, pp. 22-58.
[17]	M. Krongkaew, S. Chamnivickorn and I. Nitithanprapas, “Economic growth, Employment, and Poverty Reduction Linkages: The Case of Thailand,” op. cit., pp. 27-30
[18]	N. Kakwani and E. Pernia, “What Is Pro-Poor Growth?” Asian Development Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2000, pp. 1- 16.
[19]	B. Francois, “The Growth Elasticity of Poverty Reduction: Explaining Heterogeneity across Countries and Time Pe- riods,” DELTA Working Papers, Paris, 2002-2003.
[20]	N. Kakwani and E. Pernia, “What Is Pro-Poor Growth?” op. cit., pp. 1-14.
[21]	M. Krongkaew, S. Chamnivickorn and I. Nitithanprapas, “Economic Growth, Employment, and Poverty Reduction Linkages: The Case of Thailand,” op. cit., pp. 44-45.
[22]	N. Kakwani and E. Pernia, “What Is Pro-poor Growth?” op. cit., pp. 1-14.
[23]	J. Blaxall, “Governance and Poverty,” Joint Workshop on Poverty Reduc-tion Strategies in Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, 4-6 October 2000, pp. 1-4.
[24]	D. Kaufmann, A. Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, “Gover-nance Matters IV: New Data, New Challenges,” World Bank, Washington DC, 2005. www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/pubs/govmatters4.html
[25]	S. Sumarto, A. Suryahadi and A. Arifianto, “Governance and Poverty Reduction: Evidence from Newly Decentral- ized Indonesia,” Working Paper, SMERU Research In- stitute, March 2004.