Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Political Economy of Decentralization in Thailand: How Past and Present Decentralization Affects rural Actors’ Participation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The European Journal of Development Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decentralization is no guaranty for political participation. The Thai decentralization process of the last two decades represents an ideal regional case to investigate forces that influence political participation. The Tambon Administration Organization as one means of and likewise outcome of the decentralization process serves as an example to discuss the effects of decentralization on participation, using the concept of accountability. After increasing decentralization efforts at the end of the 1990s, the last decade was characterized by centralization policies. Political unrest could potentially trigger a new wave of decentralization. Presently, however, no political forces exist that push decentralization further. Thus, we expect to see more centralization and a possible reduction of political participation.

Abstract

La décentralisation ne guarantit pas la participation politique. Le processus de décentralisation Thai de ces deux dernières décennies représente un cas idéal dans la région pour étudier les forces qui influencent la participation politique. L’organisation Tambon Administration, en tant que fin et moyen du processus de décentralisation sert d’exemple pour discuter des effets qu’a la décentralisation sur la participation, en utilisant le concept de responsabilité. Après des efforts de décentralisation croissants vers la fin des années 1990, la dernière décennie a été marquée par des politiques de centralisation. Les troubles politiques pourraient potentiellement déclencher une nouvelle vague de décentralisation. Cependant, actuellement, aucune force politique n’existe pour continuer la décentralisation. Ainsi, nous nous attendons à voir une centralisation accrue et une réduction potentielle de la participation politique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We follow Schedler’s (1999, p. 14) definition of accountability, which states that it ‘carries two basic connotations: answerability, the obligation of public officials to inform about and to explain what they are doing; and enforcement, the capacity of accounting agencies to impose sanctions on powerholders’.

  2. The Provincial Department of Local Administration annually assesses all TAOs on its administrative and management capabilities, including the extent to which public participation in local planning is promoted. On this basis, we chose for our empirical work the bottom two and top two TAOs (within the Khon Kaen province). We conducted 120 semi-structured interviews and group discussions with villagers and key persons, and local government officials, plus numerous subsequent telephone interviews. Part of our empirical findings in this paper is likewise based on a standardized questionnaire. For that questionnaire, we randomly chose half of the villages in each of our four TAOs (in total 26 villages) and then randomly selected four households in each village, amounting to 104 surveyed households.

  3. Thailand has a relatively high level of linguistic and religious homogeneity (Turton, 1984, p. 21). Apart from formal institutions, many informal institutions are comparable across the whole nation. Nevertheless, Thai culture is diverse and has its regional specifics (Jory, 1999a, p. 339).

  4. Political participation does not only focus on elections. It may also incorporate campaigning, demonstrating, lobbying decisionmakers and so on (Blair, 2000, p. 23). Thus, political participation in Thailand can be exercised through a variety of channels, for instance directly via elections, which have been discussed in detail by Callahan (2005) and Bowie (2008), or indirectly via civil society groups or social movements. The latter pathways of participation have been discussed in detail elsewhere. As Walker (2008, p. 86) points out, a rich body of research exists on local non-electoral struggles against, for example, large infrastructure development projects.

  5. Institutions in the form of rules are also of special interest in the decentralizing process and in the enabling of participation. For example, the Institutional Analysis and Development framework, developed by Elinor Ostrom and colleagues, was specifically designed for the purpose of investigating decision making under a set of diverse rules-in-use. Since we have a different focus in this article, we opted for the accountability framework.

  6. From the late 1960s to the 1980s, the central Thai government felt threatened by communists and the situation turned into a violent insurgency. This reinforced the commitment to strong central government control (Wongpreedee and Mahakanjana, 2011, p. 55).

  7. The 1997 Constitution was dissolved with a bloodless military coup in September 2006. In August 2007, a new constitution was accepted by public referendum, which, however, was controlled by the military government. Any campaigns against the draft constitution were suppressed and the legitimacy of the referendum is questionable (Hewison, 2009, p. 127; Pasuk and Baker, 2010, p. 7).

  8. In mid-2010, 5767 TAOs existed. However, Charas and Weist (2009, p. 201) claim that about 1500 TAOs are more effective. Policies are in place that allow the merging of Tambons or an upgrade to municipalities. But the consolidation process is hampered by the resistance of TAO members who fear losing their status since fewer councillors are needed for merged TAOs or municipalities (UNDP, 2009, p. 4).

  9. For a thorough discussion on Thaksin’s rise to power and the circumstances of the 2006 coup, we refer to a special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia, 2008, Vol. 38 Issue 1.

  10. The National Decentralization Committee was convened at the beginning of 2000.

  11. However, informal linkages between TAOs and village funds are quite common. For instance, TAO officials are often involved in the management committees of village funds (Rattanasripanya, 2011, p. 100).

  12. During the review and revision phase of this article, the situation in Thailand has again dramatically changed. The deep divisions of Thai society resulted in a month-long protest of anti-government forces in Bangkok. On 7 May 2014, the Constitutional Court of Thailand ordered Yingluck Shinawatra to step down based on charges of abuse of power. Finally, her party’s government was swept away by a military coup on 22 May 2014. Meanwhile this coup was made respectable by word of the King. A thorough discussion of these events and their cause is, however, beyond the scope of this article.

  13. For instance, interviews with villagers and village delegates participating in planning committees at the TAO revealed that many did not know how decisions are made or in the case of the delegates what their task was in these committees, or their task descriptions differed from official description.

  14. Another form of institutionalized participation and deliberation is the provincial-level civic assemblies, which bring various groupings of the society together (for example, government officials, civil society groups, academics, private sector). Those assemblies fulfil tasks similar to the Tambon civic forums but on the provincial level and have no binding authority. However, they provide popular input into administrative planning (Connors, 2007, p. 226).

  15. An approach we have also witnessed in some villages and TAOs.

  16. Although village headmen do not officially hold an office within the TAO administration, we experienced that they are incorporated into many committees and administrative procedures.

  17. After a brief period in the 1990s, Thai media have been under repression from the 2000s onwards (Pongsudhirak, 1997, p. 231; Pasuk and Baker, 2013, p. 627). This is illustrated by Thailand’s low score on the Press Freedom Index.

References

  • Ackerman, J. (2004) Co-governance for accountability: Beyond ‘exit’ and ‘voice’. World Development 32 (3): 447–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. and Ribot, J.C. (1991) Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African cases. Journal of Developing Areas 33 (4): 473–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, K.P. and Ostrom, E. (2008) Analysing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences 41 (1): 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arghiros, D. (2001) Democracy, Development and Decentralization in Provincial Thailand. Richmond, UK: Curzon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badenoch, N.A. (2006) Social networks in natural resource governance in a multi-ethnic watershed of Northern Thailand. PhD Thesis. Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.

  • Baker, C.J. and Pasuk, P. (2009) A History of Thailand. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P. (2002) Decentralisation of governance and development. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (4): 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, H. (2000) Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development 28 (1): 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, K. (2008) Vote buying and village outrage in an election in Northern Thailand: Recent legal reforms in historical context. Journal of Asian Studies 67 (2): 469–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, W.A. (2005) Social capital and corruption: Vote buying and the politics of reform in Thailand. Perspectives on Politics 3 (3): 495–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case, W. (2002) Politics in Southeast Asia: Democracy or Less. Richmond, UK: Curzon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaowarat, P. (2010) Participatory planning in municipal development in Thailand. PhD Thesis. Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

  • Charas, S. (2007) Thailand: Civic participation in subnational budgeting. In: A. Shah (ed.) Participatory Budgeting. Worldbank, Washington DC, pp. 127–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charas, S. and Weist, D. (2009) Thailand’s decentralization: Progress and prospects. In: S. Ichimura and R. Bahl (eds.) Decentralization Policies in Asian Development. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 193–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chardchawarn, S. (2010) Local governance in Thailand: The politics of decentralization and the role of bureaucrats, politicians and the people. V.R.F.Series 459. Institute of Developing Economies – Japan External Trade Organization, Chiba, Japan.

  • Connors, M.K. (2007) Democracy and National Identity in Thailand. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, NIAS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connors, M.K. and Hewison, K. (2008) Introduction: Thailand and the ‘good coup’. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38 (1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dressel, B. (2009) Thailand’s elusive quest for a workable constitution, 1997−2007. Contemporary Southeast Asia 31 (2): 296–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funder, M. (2010) The social shaping of participatory spaces: Evidence from community development in Southern Thailand. Journal of Development Studies 46 (10): 1708–1728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garden, P., Lebel, L. and Chirangworapat, C. (2010) Local government reforms as work in progress. In: C. Wittayapak and P. Vandergeest (eds.) The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Mekong Press, pp. 137–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garden, P., Lebel, L., Viseskul, F., Badenoch, N.A., Chirangworapat, C. and Prompanyo, M. (2006) The Consequences of Institutional Interplay and Density on Local Governance in Northern Thailand. USER Working Paper 3. Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

  • Glassman, J. (2010) ‘The provinces elect governments, Bangkok overthrows them’: Urbanity, class and post-democracy in Thailand. Urban Studies 47 (6): 1301–1323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadiz, V.R. (2010) Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asia Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewison, K. (ed.) (1997) Introduction: Power, oppositions and democratisation. In: Political Change in Thailand: Democracy and Participation. London: Routledge, pp. 1–20.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hewison, K. (2007) Constitutions, regimes and power in Thailand. Democratization 14 (5): 928–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewison, K. (2009) Thailand’s conservative democratization. In: Y. Chu and S.-I. Wong (eds.) East Asia’s New Democracies: Deepening, Reversal, Non-Liberal Alternatives. Brighton, UK: Taylor & Francis, pp. 122–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewison, K. (2010) Thaksin Shinawatra and the reshaping of Thai politics. Contemporary Politics 16 (2): 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isager, L. and Ivarsson, S. (2010) Strengthening the moral fibre of the nation: The king’s sufficiency economy as etho-politics. In: S. Ivarsson and L. Isager (eds.) Saying the Unsayable: Monarchy and Democracy in Thailand. Copenhagen, Denmark: NIAS Press, pp. 223–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwanaga, K. (2008) Women and Politics in Thailand: Continuity and Change. Copenhagen, Denmark: NIAS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayasuriya, K. and Hewison, K. (2004) The antipolitics of good governance: From global social policy to a global populism? Critical Asian Studies 36 (4): 571–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayasuriya, K. and Rodan, G. (2007) Beyond hybrid regimes: More participation, less contestation in Southeast Asia. Democratization 14 (5): 773–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jory, P. (1999a) Political decentralisation and the resurgence of regional identities in Thailand. Australian Journal of Social Issues 34 (4): 337–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jory, P. (1999b) Political decentralization and the resurgence of regional identities in Thailand. Australian Journal of Social Issues 34 (4): 337–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A. and Houtzager, P.P. (2012) Widgets or watchdogs? Conceptual explorations in social accountability. Public Management Review 14 (2): 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jütting, J. et al. (2005) What makes decentralisation in developing countries pro-poor? European Journal of Development Research 17 (4): 626–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kharabi, J. (2010) The Thai military: A political role. Asian Journal of Public Affairs 3 (1): 16–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komives, K. (2011) Institutionalizing social accountability? Participation and the PRS process in Bolivia, Honduras and Nicaragua. European Journal of Development Research 23 (2): 302–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krongkaew, M. (1995) The political economy of decentralization in Thailand. Southeast Asian Affairs 1 (1): 343–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueathep, W. (2004) Local government initiatives in Thailand: Cases and lessons learned. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 26 (2): 217–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, A.M. and Ribot, J.C. (2004) Democratic decentralization through a natural recourse lens: An introduction. European Journal of Development Research 16 (1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lertchoosakul, K. (2012) The rise of the octobrists: Power and conflict among former left wing student activists in contemporary Thai politics. PhD thesis. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London.

  • Manor, J. (2004) User committees: A potentially damaging second wave of decentralisation? European Journal of Development Research 16 (1): 192–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansuri, G. and Rao, V. (2004) Community-based and driven development: A critical review. World Bank Research Observer 19 (1): 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansuri, G. and Rao, V. (2012) Localizing Development: Does Participation Work?. Washington DC: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCargo, D. (2002) Security, development and political participation in Thailand: Alternative currencies of legitimacy. Contemporary Southeast Asia 24 (1): 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCargo, D. (2008) Tearing Apart the Land – Islam and Legitimacy in Southern Thailand. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, N. and Street, S. (1986) Educational decentralization: Weak state or strong state? Comparative Education Review 30 (4): 471–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutebi, A.M. (2004) Recentralising while decentralising: Centre-local relations and ‘CEO’ governors in Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 26 (1): 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutebi, A.M. and Sivaraks, P. (2007) Public management reform drivers in Thailand. International Journal of Public Administration 30 (10): 1083–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagai, F. (2001) Decentralization in Thailand. In: Government Decentralization Reforms in Developing Countries. Tokyo, Japan: Institute for International Cooperation, Japan International Cooperation Agency, pp. 41–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M.H. (1998) Central Authority and Local Democratization in Thailand: A Case Study from Chachoengsao Province. Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M.H. (ed.) (2002) Thailand: Problems with decentralization. In: Thailand’s New Politics: KPI Yearbook. Bangkok, Thailand: Whilte Lotus, pp. 219–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnel, G. (1999) Horizontal accountability in new democracies. In: A. Schedler, L. Diamond and M.F. Plattner (eds.) The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlandini, B. (2003a) Civic engagement in local governance: The case of Thailand. In: H. Antlov (ed.) Citizen Participation in Local Governance: Experiences from Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: Institute for Popular Democracy (IDP), pp. 89–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlandini, B. (2003b) Consuming ‘good governance’ in Thailand. European Journal of Development Research 15 (2): 16–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasuk, P. and Baker, C. (1997) Power in transition: Thailand in the 1990s. In: K. Hewison (ed.) Political Change in Thailand: Democracy and Participation. London: Routledge, pp. 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasuk, P. and Baker, C.J. (2000) Thailand's Crisis. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasuk, P. and Baker, C. (2008) Thaksin’s populism. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38 (1): 62–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasuk, P. and Baker, C. (2010) The Mask-Play Election: Generals, Politicians and Voters at Thailand’s 2007 poll. Working Paper Series 144. Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

  • Pasuk, P. and Baker, C. (2012) Thailand in trouble: Revolt of the downtrodden or conflict among elites? In: M.J. Montesano, P. Chachavalpongpun and A. Chongvilaivan (eds.) Bangkok May 2010: Perspectives on a Divided Thailand. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 214–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasuk, P. and Baker, C. (2013) Reviving democracy at Thailand’s 2011 election. Asian Survey 53 (4): 607–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peruzzotti, E. and Smulovitz, C. (2006) Social accountability – an introduction. In: E. Peruzzotti and C. Smulovitz (eds.) Enforcing the Rule of Law: Social Accountability in the New Latin American Democracies. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 3–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phatharathananunth, S. (2002) Civil society and democratization in Thailand: A critique of elite democracy. In: D. McCargo (ed.) Reforming Thai politics. Copenhagen, Denmark: NIAS Press, pp. 125–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pongsudhirak, T. (1997) Thailand’s media: Whose watchdog? In: K. Hewison (ed.) Political Change in Thailand: Democracy and Participation. London: Routledge, pp. 217–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poocharoen, O.-O. (2010) The bureaucracy: Problem or solution to Thailand’s far South flames? Contemporary Southeast Asia 32 (2): 184–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punyaratabandhu, S. (2008) Citizen attitudes toward the concept of good governance: A survey of the north and northeast regions of Thailand. NIDA Development Journal 48 (2): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Punyaratabandhu, S. and Unger, D.H. (2009) Managing performance in a context of political clientelism: The case of Thailand. In: C. Wescott, B. Bowornwathana and L.R. Jones (eds.) The Many Faces of Public Management Reform in the Asia-Pacific Region. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 279–306.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rattanasripanya, O.-U. (2011) Social capital and clientelism: The case study of local district in Thailand. PhD thesis. School of Public Administration, National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), Bangkok, Thailand.

  • Ribot, J.C. (2003) Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutional choice and discretionary power transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Public Administration and Development 23 (1): 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodan, G. and Jayasuriya, K. (2012) Hybrid regimes: A social foundations approach. In: J. Haynes (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Democratization. Oxon, UK: Routledge, pp. 175–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. (1999) Conceptualizing accountability. In: A. Schedler, L. Diamond and M.F. Plattner (eds.) The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman, F.J. (1997) The decentralisation discourse: Post-Fordist paradigm or neo–liberal cul–de–sac? European Journal of Development Research 9 (1): 150–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shatkin, G. (2004) Globalization and local leadership: Growth, power and politics in Thailand’s Eastern Seaboard. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28 (1): 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, A.J., Kumnerdpet, W. and Moyer, J.M. (2013) Learning sustainable water practices through participatory irrigation management in Thailand. Natural Resources Forum 37 (1): 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smoke, P. (2003) Decentralization in Africa: Goals, dimensions, myths and challenges. Public Administration and Development 23 (1): 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sopranzetti, C. (2012) Burning red desires: Isan migrants and the politics of desire in contemporary Thailand. South East Asia Research 20 (3): 361–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turton, A. (1984) Limits of ideological domination and the formation of social consciousness. In: A. Turton and S. Tanabe (eds.) History and Peasant Consciousness in South East Asia. Osaka, Japan: National Museum of Osaka, pp. 19–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP (2009) Improving the Local Administrative Structure – Executive Summary. Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations Development Programme.

  • UNDP (2010) Human Security, Today and Tomorrow – Thailand Human Development Report 2009. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Bangkok, Thailand.

  • Walker, A. (2008) The rural constitution and the everyday politics of elections in Northern Thailand. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38 (1): 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warr, P. (2004) Globalization, growth, and poverty reduction in Thailand. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 21 (1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, J. (2007) Thailand: Decentralization, or What Next?. Quezon City, Philippines: Logolink Southeast Asia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wongpreedee, A. and Mahakanjana, C. (2011) Decentralization and local governance in Thailand. In: E. Berman (ed.) Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Macao. Boca Raton, FL: Springer, pp. 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the two anonymous referees for their valuable comments, which helped to improve the article. All remaining errors are our own. We thank the German Science Foundation (DFG) for their financial support (BU 1319/12–1 & TH 849/3–1). Furthermore, our field research has benefited substantially from fruitful cooperation with the Uplands Program (SFB 564) of the University of Hohenheim. We also thank Michael McGinnis from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis in Bloomington, Indiana University USA, for sharing his insights into the relationship between decentralization efforts and political participation. We are particularly grateful to Jörg Hager for his helpul discussions on earlier versions of the article and his help in setting up our field research operations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), External Environment for Agriculture and Policy Analysis, Halle (Saale), Germany

    Thomas Dufhues & Gertrud Buchenrieder

  2. Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany

    Thomas Dufhues, Insa Theesfeld & Gertrud Buchenrieder

Authors
  1. Thomas Dufhues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Insa Theesfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gertrud Buchenrieder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Dufhues.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dufhues, T., Theesfeld, I. & Buchenrieder, G. The Political Economy of Decentralization in Thailand: How Past and Present Decentralization Affects rural Actors’ Participation. Eur J Dev Res 27, 793–810 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2014.68

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2014.68

Keywords

Search

Navigation