Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
Thailand is primarily a peasant society. In 1974, about 65 per cent of the labour force earned their livelihood from agriculture, although 87 per cent of the population lived in rural areas. Because land has been relatively abundant until recent years, most farmers are landowners, with noted exceptions of tenant farming in areas contiguous to Bangkok. Their simple occupational skills have been transmitted from one generation to another within the village and family, supplemented only by up to four years of compulsory elementary education, acquired intermittently and sporadically between the ages of seven and fourteen. The basic necessities of life historically have been easily satisfied in a hospitable, tropical climate.
1 Wijeyewardene, G., “Some Aspects of Rural Life in Thailand”, in Thailand: Social and Economic Studies in Development, ed. Silcock, T.H. (Canberra, 1967), pp. 69–74Google Scholar.
2 See Embree, J.F., “Thailand: A Loosely Structured Social System”, American Anthropologist 52 (1950): 182CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A contrary view is given by Potter, J.M., Thai Peasant Social Structure (Chicago, 1976Google Scholar).
3 Reciprocity is possible only among individuals of equal status. Clients are not required to reciprocate in kind to generosities of patrons. See Bunnag, Jane, “Loose Structure: Fact or Fancy? Thai Society Reexamined”, Journal of the Siam Society 59 (1971): 16Google Scholar. Labour exchange groups form one of the eleven elements of structure in the Thai village. Potter, op. cit., pp. 167–75.
4 Norman Jacob notes the Thai is an economic man in this sense, in that he seeks to maximize his opportunities, given his constraints. See his Modernization Without Development: Thailand as an Asian Case Study (New York, 1971).
5 Stephen B. Young, “The Northeastern Village: A Nonparticipatory Democracy”, (Mimeographed paper in a U.S. Operations Mission Seminar on Thai Politics: Attitudes Values, and Patterns of Action, Feb. 1973), p. 2.
6 Ibid., p. 5. Potter notes that village leadership is assumed by senior, landed “big” people (op. cit., pp. 188–93).
7 See Somchai Rakwijit, “Village Leadership in Northeast Thailand” (USOM Seminar, Thai Politics: Attitudes. Values, and Patterns of Action, Mimeographed Paper), p. 13. In part, a degree of self-interest has been imparted to such participation, since villagers have been taught by Buddhist authorities that engaging in such projects is a way to earn merit; it is a good deed which is rewarded by moral points on an individual's cosmological record. See Keyes, Charles F., “Buddhism and National Integration in Thailand”, Journal of Asian Affairs 30, 3 (1971): 561.Google Scholar
8 This process of leadership is illustrated by Rubin, Herbert J., “Will and Awe: Illustrations of Thai Villager Dependency Upon Officials”, Journal of Asian Studies 32, 3 (1973): 725–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. “The superior should aid the inferior by acting with metta (mercy, kindness), and giving him kamlangjai (will). The inferior felt a sense of awe (kreng) towards the position of superior. The inferior felt insignificant; he feared that his endeavors would fail. The villager expressed dependence upon officials for leadership and innovation in development projects” (p. 728).
9 Somchai Rakwijit, op. cit., p. 15.
10 Phillips, Herbert, Thai Peasant Personality (Berkeley, 1966), pp. 29, 30.Google Scholar
11 Puey Ungphakorn, “Report on Thailand”, Far Eastern Economic Review, 24 Jan. 1975, p. 11.
12 “Focus on Thailand, 1974”, supplement to Far Eastern Economic Review, 18 Oct. 1974, p. 6.
13 Fuhs, F.W. and Vingerhoets, J., Rural Manpower, Institutions, and Employment, Manpower Division of the National Economic Development Board (Bangkok, 1972), p. 37Google Scholar.
14 Census of Agriculture, 1963. Average holdings by region in rai were: South — 23.0; Northeast — 21.6; North — 16.1; Central — 26.8.
15 Total arable land in 1975 was 74.6 million rai or about 24% of the total land area of 321 million rai. By 1985, only 78 million rai are expected to be available for cultivation.
16 Fuhs and Vingerhoets, op. cit., p. 30. The average ṙrural Thai family in 1971 had 6.4 members.
17 Demaine, H. and Dixon, C.J., “Land Tenure Patterns and Agricultural Development in Northeast Thailand: A Case Study of the Lam Pao Irrigation Area in Changwat Kalasin”, Journal of Siam Society 60, 2 (1972): 51.Google Scholar
18 L.D. Stifel has described this as the Burma-Malthusian model. See his “Patterns of Land Ownership in Central Thailand During the Twentieth Century”, Journal of the Siam Society 64, 2 (1976)Google Scholar. The labour force is estimated to be growing at between 2% and 3% annually. If pressure on the land is to be avoided, productivity must increase by at least that much.
19 Ibid., pp. 24–28. Fuhs and Vingerhoets report that “the proportion of fullowners in Ayudhya is only 23%; 56% in Chiengmai, and 90% in the Northeast (op. cit., pp. 49–50). Throughout the country in 1963, the Census of Agriculture estimated that only 10% of the farm population were tenants. In the Central Plains in 1967/68, 22% were tenants. A 1973/74 Ministry of Agriculture survey revealed the following regional distribution of farm households renting land:
20 The Far Eastern Economic Review recently stated: “… landlessness is most acute in the northern valleys, tenancy in the central plains, and indebtedness in the arid northeast, while in south there are extensive illegal settlements that have produced land uses termed ecologically catastrophic.” Supplement, “Focus on Thailand” (17 Oct. 1975), p. 10.
21 Ibid., p. 29. In a 1965 survey in the Central Plains, about 96% of all owner-tenants had rented some land. A 1973/74 land tenure survey by the Ministry of Agriculture identified the following changwads (provinces) as having the most severe tenancy problems: Pathum Thani, Samut Prakan, Ayudhya, Nakhon Nayok, Nonthaburi, Chachoengsao, and Thonburi.
22 Land distribution and redistribution programmes are contained in the Agricultural Land Reform Act of Feb. 1975. In the 1976—1981 period, the Government plans to distribute almost 8 million rai to hundreds of thousands of families. The Land Rent Control Act of late 1974 requires a minimum lease of 6 years and a maximum rent in kind of 50 kg of rice per rai, or one-third of the harvest, whichever is less. However, the Rent Control Act of 1950 limited rents to a maximum of half the crop, and it was largely unenforced. Most rental contracts between tenant and landlord are verbal, and in such cases the tenant could be reclassified as a labourer, nullifying the 6-year lease protection.
23 About 90% of farmers in four dispersed provinces reported in 1970 that they had utilized no change in farming methods over the past 10 years. Fuhs and Vingerhoets, op. cit., p. 57.
24 Variations were wide however; from 13.7% in Samutsongkram in the Central Region to 98.8% in Chiengmai in the North Region. Census of Agriculture, 1963.
25 “Mid-Year Economic Review”, Supplement, Bangkok Post (7 July 1975), p. 42.
26 Fuhs and Vingerhoets report that in 1969/70, about 3.4 kg were used per rai by a sample of 100 farms in 4 regionally dispersed provinces, and this is consistent with the average of 3 kg per rai used throughout the country. Most farmers do not use manure and only about one-third ever use chemical fertilizers, although in Chiengmai the proportion is higher. Many use no fertilizer at all (op. cit., pp. 51–52, 137).
27 Ibid., p, 141. In 1967 Ingram reports that in the Central region, 60% of paddy, 96% of maize, 64% of cotton, 72% of sugar cane, and 75% of sorghum was tilled by tractors. See Ingram, James C., Economic Change in Thailand. 1850—1970 (Palo Alto, 1971), p. 273.Google Scholar
28 This observation has been made by Behrman, J.R. in “The Relevance of Traditional Economic Theory for Understanding Peasant Behavior: A Case Study of Rice Supply Response in Thailand, 1940—1963” (Discussion Paper No. 27, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1967), p. 47Google Scholar; see also, Hughes, R.B., “The Socio-Economic Study of Thai Cooperatives: Partial Preliminary Report” (Mimeo, 1967), p. 36Google Scholar. Edward Van Roy has argued that traditional patron-client relationships operating-in entourages in Northern Thailand contradict Western assumptions about economic behaviour. See his Economic Systems of Northern Thailand: Structure and Change (Ithaca, 1971), pp. 165—71. Gehan Wijeyewardene, in reviewing Van Roy's book, however, argues that the patron-client relationship is entered into because of economic motives, and he shows that the type of behaviour in harvesting and marketing miang versus tea which Van Roy believes contradicts economic rationality is, because of marketing institution imperfections, in reality uniquely rational in the economic sense. See the review in Journal of the Siam Society 60, 1 (1972): 424–27.Google Scholar
29 In 1978 the decline in world tapioca prices motivated farmers to substitute other cash crops for cassava. See Peter Fish, “Tapioca Mountain Worries Thailand”, Far Eastern Economic Review, 1 Sept. 1978, p. 92. Thailand in 1972 was the world's third largest producer of tapioca (10 million metric tons) and the largest exporter.
30 This process is described by Dan Usher in “The Thai Rice Trade”, in Thailand: Social and Economic Studies in Development, pp. 206—19. The dependency relation is described in the following account: “There is the story of the crop buyer who comes round to the farm immediately after harvest and offers to buy rice for Baht 2,500. The merchant asks, him where he heard that. ‘On the radio,’ replies the farmer. ‘Well, you'd better sell it to the radio station, hadn't you’? is the merchant's rejoinder.” “Focus on Thailand 75”, Far Eastern Economic Review, 17 Oct. 1975, p. 11.
31 R.B. Hughes, op. cit., p. 28.
32 Usher believes that exploitation by middlemen of the farmer normally does not occur (op. cit., p. 219). Baldwin, however, notes that some knowledgeable students of the Thai economy believe that some monopsonistic exploitation of farmers by traders may occur, but that above this level, the rice market is highly competitive. See Baldwin, W.L., “The Thai Rice Trade as a Vertical Market Network: Structure, Performance, and Policy Implications”, Economic Development and Cultural Change 22, 2 (1974): 192CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Peters believes the bargaining power of farmers in the Northeast is weak. See Peters, C.W., Agricultural Credit and Marketing in Northeast Thailand, Agency for International Development (Bangkok, 1966), p. 26.Google Scholar
33 See Owen, N.G., “The Rice Industry of Mainland Southeast Asia”, Journal of the Siam Society 109, 2 (1971): 115–18.Google Scholar
34 Stifel, L.D., “Imperfect Competition in a Vertical Market Network: The Case of Rubber in Thailand”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, 2 (1975): 635—39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 R.B. Hughes, op. cit., p. 28.
36 Ibid., p. 47–48.
37 Two groups in the North are the Northern Union of Fanners Groups with 13,000 member families and the Farmer's Federation of Thailand. The latter is an unregistered association of mostly tenant farmers who have organized to protest high rents. Between April and October 1975, 21 leaders were murdered, apparently in an attempt to suppress the FFT. See “The New Thailand”, Bangkok Bank Monthly Review 16, 10 (1975): 566.Google Scholar
38 Hughes, op. cit., p. 50.
39 Ibid., pp. 47–48.
40 Fish, Peter, “Thailand Tries to Help the Poor”, Far Eastern Economic Review, 15 Sept. 1978, p. 54Google Scholar. The support price was expected to vary between Baht 2,400 and 2,700 per ton.
41 The average is based on 6.4 members per family. See Prachmabmoh, V., Knodel, J. et al. , The Rural and Urban Populations of Thailand: Comparative Profiles, Institute of Population Studies, No. 8 (Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 1972), p. 15.Google Scholar
42 McCleary, W.A., “Foreign Aid and the Choice of Technique in Road Construction in Thailand” (Thammasat University Economic Discussion Paper Series, No. 46, Nov. 1974), p. 9.Google Scholar
43 Hughes, op. cit., p. 3. The following discussion owes much to his description of rural credit. Also, see Fuhs and Vingerhoet, op. cit., pp. 53—56. Debt is also high among commercial fishermen.
44 One source has guessed that 4 million families are in debt for an average of 4,000 baht each. A sample in 1972 estimated that 48% of rural families needed short-term production credit for crop raising of 4,000 baht a year, varying by region and population pressure on the land. “More Credit to the Farmer”, Investor 7, 9 (1975): 18—19Google Scholar. Variations in estimates of debt depend on when surveys are taken. If most loans are short-term production loans, in the planting season debt may be high, but after the harvest, debts are repaid and the debt incidence will be low.
45 Mabry, and Kompur, T., “Manpower Imbalances in Thailand”, Western Economic Journal 10, 4 (1972): 428—48Google Scholar, have given an analysis of education and manpower planning in Thailand. In 1969, 98.4% of the rural population aged 15 and over had 7 years or less of schooling. The Longitudinal Study of Social, Economic, and Demographic Change in Thailand taken in 1969 found in its sample of rural households that 87.2% of males and 93.5% of females aged 15 and over had 4 years or less of schooling. Prachuabmoh and Knodel, op. cit., p. 37.
46 For every 13 lower primary schools, there was only one upper primary school. Secondary schools are found only in the district municipalities. Upper primary and secondary schools are most numerous in the Central Plains and Northern regions, less numerous in the Northeast and South.
47 Smith, H. E., “Some Sociological Aspects of Thai Rural Education”, Journal of Social Sciences (Chulalongkom University), 3, 3 (1965): 35.Google Scholar
48 A more complete account of these problems is given in Ministry of Public Health, Public Health in Thailand (Bangkok, 1966), pp. 6–52.
49 Mongkolsmai, Dow, “Supply of and Demand for Physicians in Thailand” (M.A. diss., Thammasat University, Bangkok, 1972), 45Google Scholar.
50 In 1971, there were an average of 6.8 vacant positions for physicians in each provincial hospital, but in Bangkok, there were only 2.8 vacant positions per hospital. Ibid., pp. 102—3. Medical students in Thailand are admitted by competitive examination; they rank first in exam scores for openings in all faculties; and most receive full scholarships. The unwillingness of Thai physicians to practise upcountry continues to frustrate Thailand's ability to achieve its rural health care objectives.
51 These results were forecast for Ceylon: See Barlow, Robin, “The Economic Effects of Malaria Eradication”, American Econoyue Review 57, 2 (1967): 131Google Scholar. In Thailand, an unpublished study by Gavin Jones (of the National Economic and Social Development Board in Bangkok) and Chet Boonpratuang, “The Effect of Population Growth and Urbanization on the Attainment of Public Health Goals in Thailand”, revealed that if by the year 2000 the population were 70 million instead of 86 million, up to 8.3 million baht could be saved in public health expenditures. A companion study made at the same time by Gavin Jones and Vallabh Tantioejakul, “The Effect of Population Trends on the Attainment of Educational Goals in Thailand: A Preliminary Investigation”, estimated that with the lower, population, the education budget could be reduced by 25%.
52 For example, the average annual percentage of the labour force having some but less than a full-work week by regions was as follows: North — 22.6; Northeast — 14.4; South — 28.3.
53 For a more detailed description, see Stifel, L.D., “Rubber and the Economy of Southern Siam”, Journal of the Siam Society 59, 2 (1971): 3–23.Google Scholar
54 Ibid., p. 5.
55 Burr, Angela, “Islam and Buddhism in a Southern Thai Coastal Village”, Journal of the Siam Society 59, 1 (1971): 188–89.Google Scholar
56 “Mid-Year Economic Review Supplement”. Bangkok Post, 7 July 1975, p. 62.
57 J.C. Ingram, Economic Change in Thailand Since 1850, rev. (Palo Alto, 197]). pp. 44 — 58.
