Grassroots policies getting a rethink

Business » Economics

Grassroots policies getting a rethink

Beneficiaries say money was well spent

Published: 23/12/2008 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: Business

The priority task for the new government will be to assess the extent of a possible rise in joblessness and consider the appropriate assistance measures.

During the past eight years, governments led by the dissolved Thai Rak Thai and People Power parties embarked on many grassroots spending projects, ostensibly with the intention of supporting community economic development. They included the 70-billion-baht village funds, small, medium and large (SML) community development funds, entrepreneur creation under Otop (One Tambon, One Product), and farm debt suspension.

The programmes, all initiated by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, were branded by critics populist and unproductive. Mr Thaksin and his allies defended the programmes as putting money directly into the hands of the poor, who would spend and thus lift consumption overall.

As the Democrat Party begins work as the new government after years in political exile, it is reviewing all of its predecessors' programmes to see which ones are worth keeping. Beneficiaries of the programmes have reasons to defend their merits.

Kasemsan Tiewkul, president of the Otop Northern Network of entrepreneurs, said that Otop, which began in 2001, focused on markets of community entrepreneurs rather than state provision of easy credit.

''I had set up my own business even before the creation of Otop. Otop just set a benchmark for product, created a market and assisted in exports of high-grade products. That some Otop product could not survive was not because of flawed policy or easy credit, but the business itself,'' he said.

Many Otop entrepreneurs have become strong businesses in their own right and all they want from the government these days is help promoting markets and demand. Government initiatives such as campaigning for more use of Otop goods as presents or Thai textiles in clothing are inexpensive and help entrepreneurs, Mr Kasemsan said.

''In a way, we have spent a lot of time building the Otop brand over then past seven years. No matter how the government wants to readjust it, it is not the entrepreneurs' faults. What it should do is to ensure the programme can go on by itself.''

A source who was involved in the previous government's grassroots policies said the new government should look at them as a strategy for poverty alleviation in the rural community because it creates supplementary income on top of agricultural earnings.

The government considers these projects based on their merits, rather than which party initiated them,said the source, who asked not to be named. The rural community will not enjoy healthy farm prices as it did during the 1997-98 economic crisis. And overseas labourers could migrate back to rural areas, creating a need to fill more jobs.

Natee Khlibthong, secretary-general of the National Village and Urban Community Fund Office, said the village fund project had focused on transferring know-how from the government, rather than just additional funds.

The project, in which the government allocated one million baht to each of more than 70,000 villages nationwide, has completed the first phase of implementation in strengthening accounting. The second phase is to integrate and upgrade funds and replenish certain losses. The size of the village funds have increased to 140 billion baht, including 60 billion derived from villagers' savings and borrowing from banks to fund investment.

''Most of the additional resources that we need are aimed at equipping personnel intellectually through training,'' Mr Natee said.

Fraud and non-performing loans of the village funds appeared to be low, he said. The office plans to encourage villagers to launch products and ask for the government to create markets. The plan will not overlap with Otop which involves larger enterprises.

The SML project, meanwhile, involved using state funds to build public assets within communities.

''We have been trying to educate villagers that the funds were from taxpayers' money and are meant to be revolving financial assets,'' Mr Natee said.

But Teerana Bhongmakapat, dean of economics at Chulalongkorn University, said the government should review all previous grassroots spending and gradually diminish populist projects that aim for political results.

Certain government projects such as low-cost housing were launched on a grand scale to excite people. Meanwhile, many Otop entrepreneurs failed because the government promoted the campaigns recklessly, he said.

About the author

Writer: PARISTA YUTHAMANOP

Keep this article in your social bookmark:

Latest stories in this category:

Share your thoughts

For more candid, lengthy, conversational and open discussion between one another, use our Forum

Report objectionable comments click here. Include: discussion #, commenter name, comment date / time as it looks on the page. Example: discussion 15: 09/01/2009 at 10:00 AM.

southern mice

Discussion 3 : 26/12/2008 at 08:40 AM3
Government intervention is virtually all projects undertaken at rural level are all messed up with corruptions. The mortgaging of crops, the distributions and sales of fertilisers, the guaranteeing of crop prices, etc... are all with foulish odour. In the end, it is the people who participates becoming the victims and the losers who had to carry on bigger household debts. The distribution of aids and assistance methods in Thailand must be revamped in its entirety. They should be channeled to the grassroots through 'co-operatives' instead of Govt. bodies and agencies, where the donors or the Govt. just monitors and 'audit'. Let the burden of accountability rests with the 'committee' or the 'office bearers' at the district or village levels.
Reassessing all populists policies for continuation by the present Govt. is a necessity but it must be done on intellectual and practical basis rather than on 'political' motive. The essence of thought must be one of for the general public's benefits, before it can be considered for their 'continuing existence'.Why not set up a National Co-operative Body to look into the needs of the 'grassroots' economies to start with? Let the concerned managed their economy and the Govt. just stick to the 'supporting' role instead of allowing their politicians 'meddling' and 'dictating' the rules, which more often than not, are devastating to the 'grassroots'.
Mr Ronald Brown

Discussion 2 : 25/12/2008 at 01:54 PM2
Reap what you sow - this world economic crisis is going to swallow these people up - rich and poor alike. Only the most self-sufficient will survive.

This is a rather broad statement, but it is on the right track. What we are experiencing now is a complex system (world economic system) in chaos. And it will become more unstable, volatile and chaotic.

This chaos is a manifestation of an unsustainable, unlimited growth model (current economic system) beginning to come up against a finite set of resources (Earth). This system seemed like a good idea when there was a small global population and seemingly unlimited resources. But that is no longer the case. Humans are in extended population/resource overshoot made possible by fossil fuels, notably oil.

The myarid of systems that are now globally interconnected (globalisation) do not
discriminate between rich and poor-although the rich may be able to stall the inevitable long enough to enjoy their life at the expense of many others, and the biosphere.

I think that His Majesty King Bhumibol got it right with the 'Sufficiency Economy'. A strong local economy with everyone contributing what they could. An economy that could weather out any international monetary turmoil. Too bad he never got to be absolute ruler.

But, you know. The biggest mistake that humanity (including the ancestors of the Thais) made was 10,000 years ago. Leaving the life of a roaming hunter gatherer and becoming sedentary agrarian was the beginning of the end. Once we learned how to manipulate our environment, particularly through invention and resource exploitation, our numbers grew, and our impacts increased. There is evidence of previous failed civilisations all over the planet. Ours is next.

Yes, if runaway Global Warming doesn't occur, the self sufficient agrarians will survive to repeat the mistake all over again. A dysfunctional species? I am sure.
want to help?

Discussion 1 : 24/12/2008 at 12:31 AM1
If the government really wants to help people, they will give them the tools they need to solve their own problems, reduce taxes, protect local markets, and keep their hands off everything.

In reality, the Democrats and TRT both did a great job letting in foreigners, signing useless free trade agreements, and allowing monopolies like CP to exist and swallow up small farming operations.

Then surprise, you have poor people crushed by debt, and you turn them into dependents who willingly vote you into office time and time again so the gravy train doesn't stop.

Who do these pigs think they are? Reducing their own countrymen into destitute beggars? Its disgusting - more disgusting are Bangkokians who brandish threats and insults against these poor people instead of tearing from the government ALL the criminals involved, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

Reap what you sow - this world economic crisis is going to swallow these people up - rich and poor alike. Only the most self-sufficient will survive.

southern mice

Discussion 3 : 26/12/2008 at 08:40 AM3

Government intervention is virtually all projects undertaken at rural level are all messed up with corruptions. The mortgaging of crops, the distributions and sales of fertilisers, the guaranteeing of crop prices, etc... are all with foulish odour. In the end, it is the people who participates becoming the victims and the losers who had to carry on bigger household debts. The distribution of aids and assistance methods in Thailand must be revamped in its entirety. They should be channeled to the grassroots through 'co-operatives' instead of Govt. bodies and agencies, where the donors or the Govt. just monitors and 'audit'. Let the burden of accountability rests with the 'committee' or the 'office bearers' at the district or village levels.
Reassessing all populists policies for continuation by the present Govt. is a necessity but it must be done on intellectual and practical basis rather than on 'political' motive. The essence of thought must be one of for the general public's benefits, before it can be considered for their 'continuing existence'.Why not set up a National Co-operative Body to look into the needs of the 'grassroots' economies to start with? Let the concerned managed their economy and the Govt. just stick to the 'supporting' role instead of allowing their politicians 'meddling' and 'dictating' the rules, which more often than not, are devastating to the 'grassroots'.

Mr Ronald Brown

Discussion 2 : 25/12/2008 at 01:54 PM2

Reap what you sow - this world economic crisis is going to swallow these people up - rich and poor alike. Only the most self-sufficient will survive.

This is a rather broad statement, but it is on the right track. What we are experiencing now is a complex system (world economic system) in chaos. And it will become more unstable, volatile and chaotic.

This chaos is a manifestation of an unsustainable, unlimited growth model (current economic system) beginning to come up against a finite set of resources (Earth). This system seemed like a good idea when there was a small global population and seemingly unlimited resources. But that is no longer the case. Humans are in extended population/resource overshoot made possible by fossil fuels, notably oil.

The myarid of systems that are now globally interconnected (globalisation) do not
discriminate between rich and poor-although the rich may be able to stall the inevitable long enough to enjoy their life at the expense of many others, and the biosphere.

I think that His Majesty King Bhumibol got it right with the 'Sufficiency Economy'. A strong local economy with everyone contributing what they could. An economy that could weather out any international monetary turmoil. Too bad he never got to be absolute ruler.

But, you know. The biggest mistake that humanity (including the ancestors of the Thais) made was 10,000 years ago. Leaving the life of a roaming hunter gatherer and becoming sedentary agrarian was the beginning of the end. Once we learned how to manipulate our environment, particularly through invention and resource exploitation, our numbers grew, and our impacts increased. There is evidence of previous failed civilisations all over the planet. Ours is next.

Yes, if runaway Global Warming doesn't occur, the self sufficient agrarians will survive to repeat the mistake all over again. A dysfunctional species? I am sure.

want to help?

Discussion 1 : 24/12/2008 at 12:31 AM1

If the government really wants to help people, they will give them the tools they need to solve their own problems, reduce taxes, protect local markets, and keep their hands off everything.

In reality, the Democrats and TRT both did a great job letting in foreigners, signing useless free trade agreements, and allowing monopolies like CP to exist and swallow up small farming operations.

Then surprise, you have poor people crushed by debt, and you turn them into dependents who willingly vote you into office time and time again so the gravy train doesn't stop.

Who do these pigs think they are? Reducing their own countrymen into destitute beggars? Its disgusting - more disgusting are Bangkokians who brandish threats and insults against these poor people instead of tearing from the government ALL the criminals involved, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

Reap what you sow - this world economic crisis is going to swallow these people up - rich and poor alike. Only the most self-sufficient will survive.

Grassroots policies getting a rethink