# data[].attributes.headline
ความเหลื่อมล้ำ

# data[].attributes.subject
ความเหลื่อมล้ำ

# data[].attributes.body
Source : Legislative Institutional Repository of Thailand

Credibility Evaluation : Group3 (Government Resources)
Factual Reporting : High
Comment : Special expert speaker emphasises on the detail of inequality in Thailand in each separate category.

# data[].attributes.body
Source : FACTS AND DETAILS
Credibility Evaluation : Group5 (Reference Works)
Factual Reporting : High
Comment : It also cited some data from experts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS IN THAILAND

Between June 1997 and January 1998 a financial crisis engulfed some of the fast-growing countries economies of Asia---Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and South Korea---and sent their economies crashing like a shower of meteors. Starting with Thailand, the currency, stock markets and per capita incomes of these countries plummeted one by one. Before the crisis ended 1.1 million Thais fell below the poverty line, and the perplexed and humiliated leader of South Korea left office before his term was up. In Indonesia the rupiah plunged by 86 per cent against the US dollar and 19 million people fell below the poverty line. President Suharto was forced to step down in May 1998, and Jakarta exploded in violence, leaving about 1,200 people dead and 5,000 buildings burnt.

Charles W.L.Hill of the University of Washington wrote: "Over the previous decade the Southeast Asian states of Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and South Korea, had registered some of the most impressive economic growth rates in the world. Their economies had expanded by 6 percent to 9 percent per year. This Asian miracle, however, appeared to come to an abrupt end in late 1997. When the dust started to settle in January 1998 the stock markets in many of these states had lost over 70 percent of their value, their currencies had depreciated against the US dollar by a similar amount, and the once proud leaders of these nations had been forced to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to beg for a massive financial assistance.

Janet L. Yellen wrote in Global Economic Viewpoint,"The Asian financial meltdown spread from country to country, there was deep concern about how big the impact would be on the global economy. The markets certainly were jittery. In October 1997, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged over 500 points. For the five Asian nations most associated with the crisis---Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia---the toll in both human and economic terms was enormous. In 1998, these countries saw their economies shrink by an average of 7.7 percent and many millions of their people lost their jobs. More broadly, there was concern that the crisis had revealed new sources of risk in the international financial system. [Source: Janet L. Yellen, Global Economic Viewpoint, February 27, 2007]

Book: Asia's Boom, Bust and Beyond by Mark Clifford and Pete Engardio (Prentice Hall Press, 2000)

Background Behind the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-98

Charles W.L. Hill of the University of Washington wrote: "The seeds of the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis were sown during the previous decade when these countries were experiencing unprecedented economic growth. Although there were and remain important differences between the individual countries, a number of elements were common too most. Exports had long been the engine of economic growth in these countries. A combination of inexpensive and relatively well educated labor, export oriented economies, falling barriers to international trade, and in some cases such as Malaysia, heavy inward investment by foreign companies, had combined during the previous quarter of a century to transform many Asian states into export powerhouses. Over the 1990-1996 period, for example, the value of exports from Malaysia had grown by 18 percent per year, Thai exports had grown by 16 percent per year, Singapore's by 15 percent per year, Hong Kong's by 14 percent per year, and those of South Korea and Indonesia by 12 percent per year. The nature of these exports had also shifted in recent years from basic materials and products such as textiles to complex and increasingly high technology products, such as automobiles, semi-conductors, and consumer electronics.

Janet L. Yellen wrote in Global Economic Viewpoint: "The financial crisis in Asia was in many ways very different from others. For example, earlier in the 1990s, both Mexico and Argentina suffered financial crises, largely stemming from their unsustainably high budget deficits and soaring inflation. By contrast, in most of the affected Asian countries, during the years leading up to the crisis, growth in economic activity was strong, inflation was relatively tame, investment was robust, and, with their budgets in surplus, their fiscal houses appeared to be in order. [Source: Janet L. Yellen, Global Economic Viewpoint, February 27, 2007]

"Indeed, these countries had enjoyed extraordinarily fast growth for decades. As their success grew, the international community encouraged them to open their economies to foreign capital and to liberalize their financial sectors, and there was movement in that direction beginning in the late 1980s. With freer capital markets and fewer distortions in the financial sector, foreign capital flooded in, typically as short-term loans to banks; by 1996, capital inflows had grown to $93 billion. In 1997, it all came to a "sudden stop" in East Asia. Foreign investors not only stopped flooding these countries with capital, but, in fact, reversed course and pulled capital out, in a dramatic way, as $93 billion of inflows became over $12 billion of outflows." [Ibid]

Reasons for the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-98

Reasons for the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-98: included: 1) stiff competition from China on the cheap labor front especially after the Chinese currency was devalued in 1994. 2) Crony relationships between banks, politicians and business. 3) Over optimistic, greedy, wasteful, arrogant policies.

In 1994, China devalued the yuan against the dollar by 33 percent, making Chinese labor considerably cheaper than Southeast Asian labor and making Chinese products considerable cheaper than those in Asia. In 1994 and 1995, the dollar strengthened against the yen and countries that had pegged their currency the dollar began to suffer as companies in search of cheap labor began look to China instead of Southeast Asia. The devaluation of the Chinese currency and the increase in value of the dollar also caused exports in United States to plummet. The cost of imports started to outstrip revenue brought in by exports and "the current accounts deficit rose unhealthy levels." In the case of Thailand overseas debts rose to 43 percent of GNP.

In the 1990s capital markets in Asia were liberalized while supervision of the banks and other financial institutions was woefully inadequate. Many short term loans from abroad found their way into real estate ventures and other speculative endeavors. If the currencies had been floated, their values would have shrunk gradually instead of collapsing.

The giant hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management was blamed for suddenly pulling large amounts of money out of Asia. It and George Soros and was singled out by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohammed for blame.

"Hot money," which moves easily across borders and can be quickly withdrawn if investors get spooked, was also blamed. Foreign investors invested heavily to take advantage of construction and industrial booms but got spooked when they saw a glut of factories, shopping malls and luxury apartments. The money quickly evaporated, leaving property valued a fraction of what it was, banks hold billion in bad load and hundreds of thousand of people out of work.

Janadas Devan wrote in The Strait Times: In the five crisis countries---Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand---foreign borrowing in 1995-1996 reached an annual rate of US$43 billion, with two-thirds having maturity dates of less than a year.According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), short-term loans to Thailand soared to an astonishing 7-10 per cent of GDP in the three years preceding 1997, while foreign direct investment languished at 1 per cent of GDP.When the crisis hit, these short-term funds disappeared as rapidly as they had materialised. [Janadas Devan, The Strait Times, July 3, 2007]

Janet L. Yellen wrote in Global Economic Viewpoint: There are several views on what happened. The first view is that this was a classic "liquidity" crisis---much like a banking panic, where depositors' fears about insolvency, well-grounded or not, become a self-fulfilling prophecy as their withdrawals en masse bring the bank to ruin. The second view focuses more on the vulnerabilities that existed in these nations' economic fundamentals, which threatened to lead to solvency difficulties. One such vulnerability was the pursuit of risky lending practices by financial intermediaries. In part this was due to problems with the quality of supervision and regulation of the financial sector. But the problem also lay with the long tradition of so-called "relationship lending." Rather than basing lending decisions on sound information about the fundamental economic value of specific investment projects, banks and other financial intermediaries based them on personal, business or governmental connections. As a result, bank loan portfolios became particularly risky. And these risks became grim realities when economic conditions slowed in these countries in early 1997. [Source: Janet L. Yellen, Global Economic Viewpoint, February 27, 2007]

"In spite of the risky lending practices that prevailed before the crisis, foreign investors poured money into these countries at record rates. Their willingness to do so appears to have stemmed in part from a perception that the governments of these nations stood ready to intervene to forestall bank failures. This led to another vulnerability---explicitly or implicitly pegged exchange-rate regimes, which are subject to speculative attacks if the markets perceive that the true value of the currency is misaligned with its pegged value. One explanation for the attacks that drove currency values down in Asia is tied to concerns about possible big government bailouts of the strained banking sector. If foreign investors expected that the bailouts would lead to high fiscal deficits, that expectation, in turn, would raise concerns that the governments might force their central banks to monetize their deficits, resulting in higher inflation and depressed currency values." [Ibid]

Derivatives and Wasteful Spending and the 1997-1998 Asian Financial Crisis

Some of the blame for the crises was placed on derivatives, "powerful and highly complicated agreements designed to offset certain financial risks." Under stable conditions they worked well but in times of uncertainty they can be disastrous and make a bad situation worse.

According to Time: "A product of sophisticated math and computer software, derivative contacts are designed to help banks, corporations and countries hedge against financial uncertainties, such as changes in interest rates. But banks found they could make a killing by concocting more exotic derivatives that effectively bet on the direction of interest rates, foreign exchange, commodities and stock indexes...The alchemy of derivatives rests on complex mathematical models that predict how markets and derivatives will behave under ceratin conditions. The computer models use past performance to portend the future, but they can't account for the unaccountable." Accounting rules enabled derivatives to avoid appearing on bank balance sheets so how they were was often unknown to everyone except those using them.

The large amounts of money floating around encouraged imprudent investments and speculation. Janadas Devan wrote in The Strait Times, "Loosely supervised banking systems in the years preceding 1997 had led to an excessive expansion of credit in the crisis countries. This in turn had fuelled over-investment in some sectors. Excessive credit growth had also led to wasteful boondoggles. These fed delusions of grandeur ('the world's tallest building', for example), but did not make sense otherwise. Worse still, excessive credit had fed a real estate bubble, which in turn led to a further expansion of credit, as banks lent more as the value of their collateral rose. The result was that when the bubble burst, banks were dangerously exposed, and their non-performing loans shot up. [Janadas Devan, The Strait Times, July 3, 2007]

"Poorly supervised banking systems had also allowed banks to function with inadequate capital or liquid asset ratios. Bank for International Settlements (BIS) figures for 1997 show that these ratios were significantly higher than the minimum international standard only in the Philippines (17 per cent), Hong Kong (18 per cent) and Singapore (19 per cent). [Ibid]

"The Asian crisis was not due solely to the fecklessness of Asians. The crisis was caused in large part by changes in the pattern of international financial intermediation. Firstly, the remarkable expansion of global liquidity in the 1990s increased competition in the financial services industry worldwide. Financial managers were thus predisposed to seek higher yields through risky investments, to offset declining rates of return on high-quality assets. Secondly, the macroeconomic policies of major economic powers contributed significantly to the expansion of global liquidity.

It was not surprising that capital inflows into Asia surged as a result. Asian rates of returns seemed higher. And Asians found it cheaper to borrow in dollar- or yen-denominated instruments rather than in their own local currencies. But such imbalances could not last. The surge of funds led to upward pressures on exchange rates, which in turn worsened trade deficits. And when markets forced currency depreciations, the downward pressures were worsened by the sudden outflow of short-term funds. Greed turned into fear; events took on the classic dimensions of a "bank run"; markets panicked and overshot; trade credit dried up.

Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-98 and Thailand

In February and March 1997, the Thailand government took out $23 billion in forward contracts (80 percent of which were purchased by speculators) to defend the baht and pay for imports. In May, economist in Thailand realized the forward contracts were undermining the baht and they suddenly canceled them. The speculators responded to these moves by flooding the market with orders to sell baht. The Thai government raised interest rates and tried other tactics to defend the baht but these measures only delayed the inevitable by a few months.

On July 2 1997, Thailand shifted from a dollar-pegged fixed currency policy to a floating exchange system which resulted in the devaluation of the baht. The Thai economy melted down after the shock floating of the baht, a move that sent the currency spiraling downward by 30 percent as currency speculators attacked. As one currency speculator late told Time magazine, "We were like wolves on the ridge line looking down on a herd of elk. By culling the weak and infirm, we help maintain the herd." There was talk of a military coup.

The baht went from 25 to the dollar to 50 to the dollar before stabilizing at around 40 to the dollar. The Thai government spent $10 billion of its $38 billion foreign reserves futilely trying to save the Thai currency with the belief the currency would rebound and the loses would be recouped. But the currency didn't recoup and the Thai government needed foreign currency to make $50 billion import and loan payments, which ate into reserves further.

By the end of 1997, the Thai stock market had declined by 41 percent, the currency had depreciated by 56 percent, and percent, Thailand's 15 banks and 91 finance institutions, many holding large non-performing real estate loans, teetered on the edge of solvency. There were worries that the Thai government would default. In the meantime speculators collected on their forward contracts in dollars, not devalued baht, and walk away with an estimated $3 billion in profits. By January 1998 the baht had fallen to 53.10 against the dollar and crisis had spread beyond Thailand.

The effect of the crisis was worse in the cities and on big business. The countryside and mom and pop businesses were relatively untouched. Poor people survived on rice they grew themselves, mangos and mango leaves picked from trees, and fish paste made from fish they caught in the river.

Thanong Bidaya was the finance minister of Thailand who decided to devalue the baht, triggering the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis. On that legacy Somjai Phagaphasvivat of Thammasat University in Bangkok told Reuters, "He just happened to be in a position that required him to take the decision then due to enormous pressure on the Thai economy.

Causes of Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-98 in Thailand

Before the crisis there was a massive borrowing in dollars. Asian banks owed more in dollars than they held in reserves. Most of the debt was short term and financed a spending binge. Money was foolishly invested speculative real estate. Thailand was filled with excess phone lines, petrochemical plants and cement factories. More than $1 billion was spent on the Muang Thing residential and commercial development project.

A weak real estate sector was created through speculation. Businesses were unable to pay the high interest rates. The weakened banking sector further undermined the system as it could no longer provide sufficient loans. By 1996, unsold properties around Bangkok began to accumulate and investors worried about defaults began taking their money out of Thailand. As of August 1997, there were 350,000 vacant housing units in Bangkok and many unfinished offices and empty hotels. Many businesses were "sunset industries" in which companies churned out the same products year after year with less profit instead of reinvesting in more modern equipment. Thailand tried to enter the memory chip business against powerful competitors like South Korea and Taiwan. It was hit hard when the price of these chips crashed.

Individuals also amassed debt. People earning $350 a month were charging many time that amount with easy-to-get credit cards and amassing huge debts buying expensive clothes and pure-bred puppies. Interest rates had been higher in Thailand than in the U.S. Because the baht was tied to the dollar many Thais borrowed as many dollars as they could, exchanged them from baht and profited the difference. This worked fine until the baht collapse.

The Thai government wasn't much help. There were three different administrations between 1993 and 1996. None of them wanted to be the one to rain on Thailand's parade and take measures to reign in Thailand's bubble. The Prime Minster in the mid 1990s, Banharn Silpa-archa, was known as the "walking ATM." He emptied the government treasury of $39 billion to prop up the economy and keep companies and banks in business even though they had accumulated massive debts.

The disgraced Thai financier Pin Chakkaphak told the Independent, "In Thailand, the regulations for financial executives and stock trading is very loose. In the old school of Thai cronysim, inside information is everything....Thailand is a country of pure traders, not builders or people who plan. The attitude was "I have a piece of land, I want to be a rich man. If I can get a bank loan I will build a high rise on this land. And the banks were stupid enough to give out the money...Thai corporations were the worst abusers of borrowing funds, and kept putting up more buildings and dealing with nor transparency."

Before the Asian Economic Crisis in 1997-98 in Thailand

Thanong Bidaya, the finance minister of Thailand who decided to devalue the baht, triggering the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis, told the Yomiuri Shimbun: "I could sense that once the Mexican crisis started in '94, there was some warning in Thailand that we had a very similar situation-very high GDP. But no one paid interest."

In 1993 the Thai government introduced the Bangkok International Banking Facility (BIBF) allowing the private sector in Thailand to borrow foreign exchange for domestic use. Before the crisis interest rates were very high in Thailand, ranging from 8 to 12 percent, compared to about 5 percent in the United States. This led to an overborrowing in Thailand.

At the time the system appeared to work well for Thailand. Thanong said: "they needed foreign exchange to pay back the chronic deficit. So by borrowing money you add into the balance of payments and the chronic deficit would be drawn from the balance of payment so it evens out." But in reality doom was right around the corner. "Everything was so overspeculated....and the booming real estate, the high interest rates, the booming stock exchange were the causes for the overspeculation.

Businessmen skimmed profits. As they became richer they became more corrupt and skimmed more money. Lack of strong financial institutions and regulatory agencies didn't help matters. One farmer from the Chiang Mai area told Time, "We should have known better than to put a bunch of monkeys in a cage full of bananas." Singapore patriarch Lee Kuan Yew said, "Many Thai leaders in the government and opposition have personal interest in the fate of finance companies and banks, hence a natural reluctance to disciple them. So warning signs were ignored and remedies postponed."

Banking Crook at the Center of the 1997-1998 Asian Financial Crisis

Rakesh Saxena was a financial adviser to a Thai bank whose failure caused a crisis of confidence that helped spark the 1997 Asian financial meltdown. He made millions of dollars from fraudulent loans to cronies of the bank's management. The bank's failure exposed the weaknesses of the Thai financial system, which had expanded meteorically with little oversight during Thailand's boom years, and helped trigger the devastating 1997 Asian financial crisis. [Source: Ambika Ahuja , Associated Press, October 30, 2009]

In October 2009, Saxena was extradited from Canada to Thailand. AP reported: "Rakesh Saxena, 57, had staged one of the longest extradition battles in Canadian history to avoid being sent back to face charges he helped embezzle $88 million from the Bangkok Bank of Commerce, which collapsed in 1995. The bank had about $3 billion in bad debt when it was shut down. The case continues to hold potential for causing trouble, because those who received dodgy loans include several still-prominent politicians.

A spokesman for Thailand's Attorney General said Saxena, an Indian national, has over 20 cases pending against him under the Securities Exchange Act. Thailand's statute of limitations on charges under the law will run out in July 2010. "He is facing serious charges (for actions) which led to a crisis of confidence in Thailand," the spokesman told AP. "Everything will be done according to the law, but we already consider it a success that he was sent back to face justice."

A colorful wheeler-dealer who pioneered the aggressive use of mergers and acquisitions in Thailand, Saxena counted among his associates Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who was involved in some of his Thai business deals. Thai authorities originally charged Saxena in 1996. But he fled Thailand, and was arrested later that year in the British Columbia ski resort town of Whistler. He fought tenaciously against extradition, claiming he would be in danger if returned to Thailand because he could expose the wrongdoing of influential people.

His lawyers early during his stay in Canada negotiated a deal under which he was allowed to stay in his own luxury apartment with guards that he was responsible for paying. He continued to carry out business deals around the globe during his detention, allegedly including the financing of an attempted coup in the African nation of Sierra Leone. However, he was later transferred to jail from house arrest. In 2003, then-Canadian Justice Minister Martin Cauchon ordered Saxena deported to Thailand, but the fugitive financier continued to appeal the deportation order. The Supreme Court of Canada turned down his final appeal against the order in October 2009, setting his extradition in motion.

Politicians whose names were tied to the banking scandal include Newin Chidchob, influential head of a political faction in Thailand's coalition government in 2009, and Pairote Suwannachawee, husband of Information and Communications Technology Minister Ranongrak Suwannachawee.

Results of Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-98 in Thailand

The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-98 produced the worst economic slump in Thailand since World War II. The financial sector was left holding $31 billion in bad debts, unemployment increased by 23 percent to 1.3 million people, stocks fell to their lowest levels in recent memory, banks collapsed, construction stopped, offices buildings were empty, hotels lacked guests. There were suicides. Metal health hotlines were opened.

One financial analyst told Time that among foreign investors Thailand went from being the "flavor-of-the-month" to the "stink-of-the-month." In 1998, the economy shrunk by 10.5 percent, 46 percent of all loans were non-performing, and unemployment rose to 8.5 percent (2 million workers). The economy shrunk by 2 percent in 1999 and unemployment rose to 9.5 percent (3 million workers). Large auctions were held for repossessed cars and houses picked up after foreclosures.

Many of Thailand's biggest corporations went bankrupt. The biggest corporate debt defaulter, Thai Petrocical Industry (TPI), had massed $3.75 billion in debts. The Australian accountant who handled creditors claims on the company traveled around in a bullet-proof Mercedes accompanied by gun-toting bodyguards. One nosy Australian auditor who delved too deeply into the accounts of a trouble bank was gunned on a busy highway in Bangkok. The net worth of the rich Lamsams and Sophoinpaniches families shrunk by 60 percent.

Suicides and Affects of the Asian Financial Crisis on Ordinary Thais

During the "Thai Help Thai" campaign people turned in gold and dollars as part of an effort to get the country out of economic trouble. People hoarded food; mothers told their children to have a big breakfast s there would be less likely be snacks available during the day; hospitals desperate for cash offered discounts on Caesareans births and open heart surgery.

Middle class families than had been planning to send their children abroad to school or buy a beach houses were suddenly broke; yuppies canceled their wedding plans; cars were repossessed at stop lights. Car and motorcycle sales plummeted 30 percent. In 1997, the sales of Mercedes dropped 45 percent. In 1999, only 2,500 were sold. The sale of wine dropped 22 percent.

Worker showed up at the their jobs to find factory doors padlocked shut. Construction workers weren't paid for work they had already done. Many were owed back wages for weeks or months. Increased poverty in the countryside caused rural people to flee to the cities. Burmese laborers hid from police in half-constructed buildings. Some laid off workers turned to prostitution to earn money to help make ends meet. Demonstrators in Bangkok carried signs that read: "Poor people pay off the debt while the evil capitalists sell off the country."

After the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-98, the suicide rate in Thailand doubled. Many of the suicide victims were yuppies. Stress levels were particularly high among real estate developers. According to a survey in December 1997, 17 percent of the Bangkok resident's said they contemplated suicide. In another survey 5.8 percent of the people in the real estate business and 2.3 percent of the people in the finance sector seriously contemplated suicide. One health official told AFP, "Many Thais who killed themselves have been facing economic pressure for some time and the flotation of the baht was the last straw."

Some Thais turned to religion for solace. Buddhist monks reported that temple visits tripled. Buddhist leaders led nationwide chants at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha in Bangkok to dispel bad karma and promote positive energy. There was also a an increase in demand for psychological counseling and mental relaxation classes.

The New York Times described one family with a young boy who died because it could no longer afford his medicine. The son had a lung disease that could be treated with medicine that cost $50 a month and was paid for with the help of relatives who worked at construction jobs in Bangkok. After the crisis the cost of the medicine shot up to $120 a month (because of the depreciation of the baht) and relatives lost their job and could no longer help pay for the medicine. [Source: New York Times, June 8, 1998]

Thailand's IMF Bailout

Thailand received $17.2 billion from the International Monetary Fund. It was the largest rescue plan since Mexico received $40 billion from the IMF in 1995. The IMF demanded an end to the political patronage system in Thailand and reforms to system that encouraged cronyism and corruption.

Followed IMF rules, the baht stabilized, interest rates were lowered, some financial restructuring was done and services were increased because there were few imports. Thailand was net food exporter, and didn't have to worry about food shortages. Thailand and South Korea followed IMF advise and rebounded much quicker after the Asian financial crisis than countries like Indonesia that did not quickly follow the advice. Thailand paid back its IMF loan two years ahead of schedule.

Asian Financial Crisis Spreads from Thailand to Southeast Asia

The economies of Southeast Asia are closely tied. The melt down in Thailand set off a chain reaction throughout the region. After the currency crashed it in Thailand, it also crashed in Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia.

Investors took a look around Southeast Asia and saw Thailand-like problems in Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia and pulled out their money, and the stock markets and currencies plummeted there as well.

Charles W.L.Hill of the University of Washington wrote: Following the devaluation of the Thai baht, wave after wave of speculation hit other Asian currencies. One after another in a period of weeks the Malaysian ringgit, Indonesian rupiah and the Singapore dollar were all marked sharply lower. With its foreign exchange reserves down to $28 billion, Malaysia let its currency, the ringgit, float on July 14th, 1997. Prior to the devaluation, the ringgit was trading at $1=2.525 ringgit. Six months later it had declined to $1=4.15 ringgit. Singapore followed on July 17th, and the Singapore dollar (S$) quickly dropped in value from $1=S$1.495 prior to the devaluation to $1=S$2.68 a few days later. Next up was Indonesia, whose currency, the Rupiah, was allowed to float on August 14th. For Indonesia, this was the beginning of a precipitous decline in the value of its currency, which was to fall from $1=2,4000 Rupiah in August 1997 to $1=10,000 on January 6th, 1998, a loss of 75 percent.

"With the exception of Singapore, whose economy is probably the most stable in the region, these devaluations were driven by similar factors to those that underlay the earlier devaluation of the Thai baht. A combination of excess investment, high borrowings, much of it in dollar denominated debt, and a deteriorating balance of payments position. The leaders of these countries, however, were not always quick to acknowledge the home grown nature of their problems. [Ibid]

Reforms after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-98 in Thailand

After the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis in Thailand the currency floated freely, reserves of foreign currency increased, mostly by exporting to the United States, and the practice of borrowing from abroad in the short term has been curtailed. The government closed or seized two thirds of Thailand's financial houses and seized or forced the sale of most of its 15 major commercial banks. Thailand created bankruptcy court in 1999. The process was slowed by politicians who also headed some of Thailand's largest companies.

The decline in the value of the baht increased exports, deterred foreign spending, attracted foreign investors and tourists. Among those who found new business opportunities created by the crisis were debt collectors. Overall there was less damage to the economy than in Indonesia and the Philippines.

In 1999, exports were flat as a result of the Asia-wide recession. The government was slow to developed a strategy to revive the economy. Cronyism continued to live on in Thailand. The number of non-performing loans was still high (46 percent) in 2000. The recovery was delayed in the early 2000s by the dot.com crash, September 11th, and SARS.

After the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-98 in Thailand

Many Thais felt the whole crisis was created by foreigner to get their hands on valuable Thai assets at cheap prices. In March 1999, Peter Brimble, a longtime analyst in Bangkok, told the New York Times, "There is a new feeling out there that foreigners are trying to take over Thailand on the cheap." American fiancier George Soros canceled a speech in Bangkok after business people there threatened to pelt him with rotten eggs and fruit.

Thailand was unable to compete on the cheap labor front against countries like China, Vietnam and India. Matsushita was one company that cut its production facilities in Thailand and shifted jobs to China.

Rather than following the Japanese, Korean and Chinese models of developing mass production and acting as a subcontractor for more developed nations, Thailand began focusing on developing promising home grown sectors such as processed food, textiles with the intent of nurturing domestic demands as well as imports. There was also an effort to decentralize and move more jobs to the countryside.

Thailand has not demanded technology transfers as has been the case in China and South Korea. Local companies burden by debt were not anxious invest in improved technology and research and development. A plan was introduced to form a Southeast Asia wide fund---with each country contributing about 1 percent of their foreign exchange reserves---to avoid a financial crisis like the one in 1997. This became the Chiang Mai Initiative (See Below).

By the early 2000s Thailand's developing, free-enterprise had largely recovered from the Asian financial crisis. By 2002 Thailand's standard of living had returned to the level prevailing before the financial crisis. The recovery reflected the benefit of reform measures tied to assistance by the International Monetary Fund, direct investment from Japan, the United States, Singapore, and other nations, and surging exports. During 2001-4 the economy grew at a moderate rate, but the rate of growth was slower than in the booming 1980s and the first half of the 1990s. A long-term shift from agriculture to manufacturing and services continued.

Image Sources:

Text Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, Lonely Planet Guides, Library of Congress, Tourist Authority of Thailand, Thailand Foreign Office, The Government Public Relations Department, CIA World Factbook, Compton's Encyclopedia, The Guardian, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, AP, AFP, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, Global Viewpoint (Christian Science Monitor), Foreign Policy, Wikipedia, BBC, CNN, NBC News, Fox News and various books and other publications.

&copy 2008 Jeffrey Hays

Last updated May 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS IN THAILAND Between June 1997 and January 1998 a financial crisis engulfed some of the fast-growing countries economies of Asia---Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and South Korea---and sent their economies crashing like a shower of meteors. Starting with Thailand, the currency, stock markets and per capita incomes of these countries plummeted one by one.

# data[].attributes.body
Source : BBC News
Credibility Evaluation : Group6 (News)
Source Bias : Slight bias against the military government.
Factual Reporting : Not neutral.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A chronology of key events:

7th-10th cent AD - Hindu and Buddhist Dvaravati culture, thought to be of the ethnic Mon people, predominates.

10th-14th cent - Southern Thailand is ruled by the mainly Mon Lavo Kingdom, but with growing influence from the Khmer neighbouring Empire. (modern-day Cambodia). The Tai people - the antecedents of modern ethnic Thais - start to move southwards into the area.

1238-1448 - Thai-speaking Sukhothai kingdom expands its rule further south, coming to dominate much of modern-day Thailand, before being eclipsed by a rival Thai kingdom in the south, Ayutthaya.

1350-1767 - Ayutthaya kingdom gradually brings Thailand under its control and becomes a major power in Southeast Asia. At its greatest extent around 1600, it rules parts of modern-day Cambodia, Laos and Burma.

1448 - King Ramesuan joins Ayutthaya and Sukhothai in personal union.

1590-1605 - Reign of Naresuan. Seen as Ayutthaya's greatest king, he ends a period of Burmese overlordship and briefly conquers Cambodia and parts of southern Burma.

1767 - Invading Burmese forces sack the capital, Ayutthaya, bringing an end to the kingdom.

1768-1782 Under Taksin the Great, an ethnic Thai Chinese, the shortlived Thonburi Kingdom re-establishes Thai control. Taksin is toppled by a coup launched by General Chao Phraya Chakri, who founds a new dynasty centred on Bangkok.

Rise of modern Thailand

1782 - Beginning of the Chakri dynasty under King Rama I, which rules to this day. The country is known as Siam. New capital of Bangkok founded.

1804-1868 - Reign of King Mongkut (Rama IV), who embraces Western innovations and initiates Thailand's modernisation.

1868-1910 - Reign of King Chulalongkorn. Employment of Western advisers to modernise Siam's administration and commerce. Railway network developed.

1917 - Siam becomes ally of Great Britain in World War I.

1932 - Bloodless coup against absolute monarch King Prajadhipok. Constitutional monarchy introduced with parliamentary government.

1939 - Siam changes its name to Thailand ("Land of the Free").

1941 - Japanese forces land. After negotiations Thailand allows Japanese to advance towards British-controlled Malay Peninsula, Singapore and Burma.

1942 - Thailand declares war on Britain and US, but Thai ambassador in Washington refuses to deliver declaration to US government.

Post-war uncertainty

1945 - End of World War II. Thailand compelled to return territory it had seized from Laos, Cambodia and Malaya. Exiled King Ananda returns.

Capital: Bangkok

Bangkok, known as "Krung Thep" - City of Angels

Population: 7.2 million

Original settlement established by Chinese traders

Became capital of Kingdom of Siam in 1782

Subway cheers Bangkok commuters
1946 - King Ananda dies in mysterious shooting incident.

1947 - Military coup by the wartime, pro-Japanese leader Phibun Songkhram. The military retain power until 1973.

1965 onwards - Thailand permits US to use bases there during the Vietnam War. Thai troops fight in South Vietnam.

Brief civilian rule

1973 - Student riots in Bangkok bring about the fall of the military government. Free elections are held but the resulting governments lack stability.

Temples

Wat Phrathat Doi Suthep temple is located near northern city of Chiang Mai
'Etiquette guide' for Thai monks Boom in Buddhist websites BBC - Religion Buddhism
1976 - Military takes over again.

1978 - New constitution promulgated.

Drugs

Thousands were killed in controversial anti-drug drive
Thai PM hails drug war success Thailand's bloody drug war
1991 - Military coup, the 17th since 1932. A civilian, Anand Panyarachun, is installed as prime minister.

Hero for a time

Policeman-turned-tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra transformed Thai politics but was ousted in a military coup
Profile: Thaksin Shinawatra
Temple row

The Preah Vihear temple sparked a border standoff with Cambodia
Q&A: Thailand-Cambodia temple dispute Tranquil temple at centre of a storm
Protest politics

Thailand's polarised politics has led to waves of mass protest
Q&A: Thailand protests
2013-14 mass protests

Demonstrators tried to force prime minister to quit
Q&A: Thailand protests Profile: Thailand's reds and yellows
1992 - Elections in September see Chuan Leekpai, leader of the Democratic Party, chosen as prime minister.

1995 - Government collapses. Banharn Silpa-archa, of the Thai Nation party, elected prime minister.

1996 - Banharn government resigns, accused of corruption. Chavalit Yongchaiyudh of the New Aspiration party wins elections.

Financial turmoil

1997 - Asian financial crisis: The baht currency falls sharply against the dollar, leading to bankruptcies and unemployment. The IMF steps in. Chuan Leekpai becomes prime minister.

1998 - Tens of thousands of migrant workers are sent back to their countries of origin. Prime Minister Chuan involves the opposition in his government in order to push through economic reforms.

2001 January - New Thai Love Thai party wins elections. Thaksin Shinawatra forms coalition government.

2004 January-March - Martial law is imposed in largely-Muslim south after more than 100 killed in a wave of attacks blamed on ethnic-Malay separatists.

Tsunami

2004 December - Thousands of people die when a massive tsunami, triggered by an undersea earthquake off the coast of Sumatra, devastates communities on the south-west coast, including the resort of Phuket.

2006 September-October - Military leaders stage a bloodless coup while Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is at the UN General Assembly. Retired General Surayud Chulanont is appointed interim prime minister.

2007 August - Voters approve a new, military-drafted constitution in a referendum.

2008 February - Return to civilian rule after December elections. Samak Sundaravej of the Thaksin-linked People Power Party (PPP) is sworn in as prime minister. Ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra returns from exile.

2008 August - Thaksin flees to Britain with his family after failing to appear in court to face corruption charges.

2010 March-May - Tens of thousands of Thaksin supporters - in trademark red shirts - paralyse parts of central Bangkok with months-long protests calling for early elections. Troops eventually storm the protesters' barricades, leaving 91 dead.

2011 July - The pro-Thaksin Pheu Thai party wins a landslide victory in elections. Yingluck Shinawatra - the sister of Mr Thaksin Shinawatra - becomes prime minister.

2013 February - Government and separatists in south sign first-ever peace talks deal.

2014 May - Constitutional court orders Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and several ministers out of office over alleged irregularities in appointment of security adviser. Army seizes power in coup.

2016 August - Voters approve a new constitution giving the military continuing influence over the country's political life.

Death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej

2016 October - King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest reigning monarch, dies at the age of 88 after 70 years on the throne.

2016 - December - Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn is proclaimed king.

2017 April - King Vajiralongkorn signs the new, military-drafted constitution that paves the way for a return to democracy.

2019 March - General election sees former general Prayut Chan-o-cha returned to power as prime minister.

2019 November - Suspected separatists kill at least 15 people in southern Thailand, in one of the country's worst attacks in years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A chronology of key events: 7th-10th cent AD - Hindu and Buddhist Dvaravati culture, thought to be of the ethnic Mon people, predominates. 10th-14th cent - Southern Thailand is ruled by the mainly Mon Lavo Kingdom, but with growing influence from the Khmer neighbouring Empire. (modern-day Cambodia).

# data[].attributes.body
Source : The International Journal of East Asian Studies
Credibility Evaluation : Group2 (Journal Articles)
Factual Reporting : High

# data[].attributes.headline
Educational inequality in Thailand : The challenge

# data[].attributes.subject
Educational inequality in Thailand : The challenge

# data[].attributes.body
Source : Bangkok Post
Credibility Evaluation : Group6 (News and Topical Stories from Quality Sources)
Source Bias : Moderate liberal bias
Factual Reporting : Quite high but also consists of words conveying bias messages.

# data[].attributes.body
Source : World Bank
Credibility Evaluation : Group4 (Reviewed Official Online Document)
Factual Reporting : High

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the last four decades, Thailand has made remarkable progress in social and economic development, moving from a low-income to an upper middle-income country in less than a generation. As such, Thailand has been a widely cited development success story, with sustained strong growth and impressive poverty reduction. Thailand's economy grew at an average annual rate of 7.5% in the boom years of 1960-1996 and 5% during 1999-2005 following the Asian Financial Crisis. This growth created millions of jobs that helped pull millions of people out of poverty. Gains along multiple dimensions of welfare have been impressive: more children are getting more years of education, and virtually everyone is now covered by health insurance while other forms of social security have expanded.

However, the growth prospects from the export-led model that not long ago powered so much of Thailand's economic growth seem to have diminished significantly, owing to a stagnation in productivity. Average growth in total factor productivity (TFP) stagnated from a high of 3.6% per annum during the early 2000s to just 1.3% during 2009-2017. Private investment declined from more than 40% in 1997 to 16.9% of GDP in 2019, while foreign direct investment flows and participation in global value chains have shown signs of stagnation.

Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has dealt a blow to the economy, aggravating the structural challenges. In 2020, the economy is estimated to have contracted by 6.1%. This is sharply steeper than the decline that occurred during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (0.3% in 2008) and second only to the 7.2% contraction in 1998, the sharpest full-year economic contraction in the past 25 years. A rapid phone survey by the World Bank implemented from April to June 2021 estimated that more than 70% of households experienced a decline in their income since March 2020, with vulnerable groups being hit hardest.

Thailand has made remarkable progress in reducing poverty from 58% in 1990 to 6.8% in 2020 driven by high growth rates and structural transformation. But 79% of the poor remain in rural areas and mainly in agricultural households. Thailand's poverty reduction slowed from 2015 onwards with poverty increasing in 2016, 2018 and 2020, mirroring a slowing economy, stagnating farm and business incomes and the COVID-19 crisis. It finds that in 2020, the poverty rate was over 3 percentage points higher in rural areas than in urban zones and the number of rural poor outnumbered the urban poor by almost 2.3 million. The distribution of poverty has also been uneven across geographic regions with the poverty rate in the South and in the Northeast almost double the poverty rate at the national level.

According to the Thailand Economic Monitor, Thailand's economy is projected to recover to its pre-pandemic level in 2022, but the pace of growth will be slower-than-expected in 2023 owing to global headwinds. The economy is projected to expand by 3.4% in 2022 and 3.6% in 2023. Growth in 2023 has been revised down by 0.7 percentage point compared to earlier projections reflecting faster-than-expected decline in global demand. Tourism sector recovery and private consumption will remain the major drivers of growth.

Thailand's fiscal response to COVID-19 significantly mitigated the impact of the crisis on household welfare. Poverty is, however, projected to rise to 6.6% in 2022 from 6.3% in 2021 as the COVID-19 relief measures start to be phased out amid elevated inflation. Additional shocks, including a renewed spike in energy prices, may further erode fiscal space unless more targeted and cost-effective social assistance measures are introduced.

Thailand's 2020 Human Capital Index (HCI) of 0.61 indicates that the future productivity of a child born today will be 39% below what could have been achieved with complete education and full health. Thailand is renowned for its universal health care program (UHC) and success in child nutrition, but quality of education remains a weak point for the country's human development. According to the Index, the country ranks high in quantity (expected years) of schooling and in the fraction of children not stunted, but low in education quality-measured by harmonized test scores. Social assistance schemes are fragmented, with untapped opportunities to modernize the level of benefits packages and efficiency.

Aging will directly lead to increased spending needs, through rising public pension and healthcare costs. The combined fiscal costs of the Civil Servant Pension, the Social Security Fund, and the Old Age Allowance are projected to rise from 1.4% of GDP in 2017 to 5.6% in 2060. Long-term aged care and healthcare costs are also expected to rise. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that public expenditure on healthcare will increase from 2.9% of GDP in 2017 to 4.9% of GDP in 2060 due to aging. The absence of offsetting measures will make it more difficult to maintain fiscal sustainability, which will become a constraint on potential growth.

The increasing frequency of natural disasters is also a threat to sustained economic growth, as it has come at the cost of the environment and inclusion. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen markedly during this recent period of rapid growth, as has inequality between the country's regions and firms. Thailand is a major marine plastic polluter on land, in river systems, and along coastlines. With the country's National Action Plan on Marine Plastic Debris 2023-2027, and Bio-Circular-Green Economy (BCG Model), Thailand set out the goal to identify public-private-people mechanisms for plastic waste segregation and enhance plastics circularity.
Last updated April 2023
For over 70 years, the Kingdom of Thailand and the World Bank Group have built a strong and productive partnership that has evolved from one focused on traditional lending and advice into an innovative knowledge-based partnership that reflects Thailand's dynamic middle-income status.

The Thailand - World Bank Group Country Partnership Framework (CPF) FY2019-2022 has been extended for two more years until June 2024 and is being implemented to support Thailand's 20 Year National Strategy (2017-2036) that focuses on key economic and social reforms to end poverty and boost shared prosperity. The extension will also support the Thai government's stronger focus on the Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) economic model, digital transformation, and the challenges of a rapidly aging society. The overarching goal of the CPF is to support Thailand's transition to an innovative, inclusive and sustainable economy. It has six objectives:

Improving the business environment through promotion of competition and innovation

Strengthening fiscal and economic institutions

Enhancing the quality of infrastructure investments

Addressing climate change and water resources management

Promoting quality education

Supporting inclusion of vulnerable groups, particularly in the fragile, conflicted areas of Southern Thailand

A Systematic Country Diagnostic Update is currently being prepared for Thailand, which aims to identify key policy priorities for Thailand to achieve inclusive and sustainable growth, and will serve as an analytical basis for the new World Bank Group partnership with the Government of Thailand.

The current World Bank portfolio in Thailand consists of Trust Funds and Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA). As of March 2023, active trust funds amounted to $7.6 million with activities supporting the environment sector and peacebuilding in Southern Thailand. Seventeen active ASAs including five active Reimbursable Advisory Service (RAS) engagements cover macroeconomic analysis, education and skills, public expenditure review, poverty assessment and inclusion, and policy recommendations for securities business after COVID-19 and under digital disruption.

With over 190 staff working with our government partners and in the communities, the Thailand office serves as an important regional hub, supporting diverse country programs in the East Asia and Pacific region, such as Myanmar, Lao PDR, and Cambodia; as well as Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka in South Asia.
Last updated March 2023
The World Bank partners with Thailand in meeting challenges that affect people's daily lives through grant funding delivered in collaboration with local organizations, international bodies, think tanks and academic institutions.

World Bank grant-funded projects have supported peacebuilding efforts in Thailand's south, in which conflict has claimed 6,000 lives since 2004. Implemented in 27 communities, the project in the three southern provinces of Pattani, Narathiwas, and Yala helped demonstrate the value of community development and capacity-building to foster understanding and improve the capacity of civil society to effectively engage with the state. In recent years, the World Bank also provided psychosocial support to people who were affected by the security laws in the conflict-affected areas of Southern Thailand.

The World Bank supported the ASEAN Secretariat in preparing the Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris in the ASEAN Member States (2021-2025), which provides a scalable, solution-focused joint strategy to address marine plastic debris across the region. A series of World Bank Group studies also examined the untapped economic opportunities to promote plastic circularity and address marine debris in Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand.

Another grant-funded project aims to assist the Thai industry to reduce the use of harmful ozone depleting global warming gases. The HCFC phase-out project has enabled more than 80 small and medium size foam manufacturers to change their production technology to non-ozone depleting and low global warming impact alternatives. In 2020, Thailand signed a $5 million grant agreement in support of reducing the import and use of ozone-depleting chemicals by 2023.

Thailand was part of the World Bank Group's Partnership for Market Readiness, a global climate change alliance of more than 30 nations, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. Thailand also received a grant of $3.6 million from the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility to manage and protect its forests.

Under the Reimbursable Advisory Services (RAS) Agreement, the World Bank is partnering with five cities - Khon Kaen, Chiang Mai, Phuket, Rayong and Nakhon Sawan - on urban infrastructure financing and with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to assess the landscape of Thai securities businesses after COVID-19 and under digital disruption. The Bank has also partnered with the Equitable Education Fund to help narrow learning gaps between schools serving households from different socio-economic status and geographic areas in Thailand, as well as raise the literacy, digital and social-emotional skills of Thailand's future workforce.

Biannually, the World Bank publishes the Thailand Economic Monitor (TEM) , which reviews recent economic developments and provides an independent analysis of the near- and medium-term economic outlook. The TEM also provides advice on growth-promoting policies.

Other examples of analytical work include:

Thailand Rural Income Diagnostic aims to examine the challenges and opportunities to improve income and productivity in the rural sector.

Thailand Country Private Sector Diagnostic, a joint World Bank-IFC report, aims at assessing the challenges and opportunities for private sector led growth.

COVID-19 Household Survey, conducted between April to June 2021, covered important topics on how COVID-19 impacted employment and income, access to food and other basic needs, safety nets and coping strategies, and health and vaccination in Thailand.

The Thailand Social Protection 4.0 report reviews Thailand's social protection and labor market systems to assess how they can be strengthened to address existing and emerging vulnerabilities and to promote sustainable livelihoods in the context of rapid economic and social change.

Aging and the Labor Market in Thailand focuses on the labor market implications of aging in the context of the changing world of work.

Thailand - Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 discusses how to create inclusive learning environments in schools to help improve Thailand's education performance.

Thailand Manufacturing Firm Productivity, a joint research product of the World Bank and the Monetary Policy Department of the Bank of Thailand on how Thailand can achieve higher productivity growth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thailand is one of the great development success stories. Due to smart economic policies it has become an upper middle income economy and is making progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

# data[].attributes.body
Source : Macrotrends
Credibility Evaluation : Group4 (Reviewed Official Online Document)
Factual Reporting : High
Comment : Offer mostly statistics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NOTE: All 2020 and later data are UN projections and DO NOT include any impacts of the COVID-19 virus.

Poverty headcount ratio at $5.50 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $5.50 a day at 2011 international prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.

Thailand poverty rate for 2017 was 7.80%, a 0.6% decline from 2016.

Thailand poverty rate for 2016 was 8.40%, a 1.3% increase from 2015.

Thailand poverty rate for 2015 was 7.10%, a 3.5% decline from 2014.

Thailand poverty rate for 2014 was 10.60%, a 1% decline from 2013.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Poverty headcount ratio at $5.50 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $5.50 a day at 2011 international prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.

# data[].attributes.headline
How big is income inequality as a determinant of crime rates?

# data[].attributes.subject
How big is income inequality as a determinant of crime rates?

# data[].attributes.body
Source : THE NYU DISPATCH
Credibility Evaluation : Group6 (Topical Stories from Quality Sources)
Factual Reporting : Rather high.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The link between poverty and crime is a subject that has been examined by sociologists, governments and organizations such as the World Bank and United Nations for decades now. Robbing, for example, is most commonly reported to take place in areas of extreme poverty in the Americas (Latin America and the Caribbean) at a rate of 21 percent, and robbery and assault are among the most commonly reported crimes in communities that are predominantly poor. Places with high income inequality in particular have higher incidences of crime - overwhelmingly so, in fact. A 2002 study by The World Bank found that crime rates and inequality are positively correlated, and an increase in income inequality has the effect of intensely increasing crime rates. That same study also found that increases in a country's GDP has the ability to lessen the incidence of crimes in that country, showing that poverty alleviation has a crime-reducing effect.

That being said, other studies have revealed that the upper class commits far more crime than the lower class , which contradicts the assumption that crime is more predominant among the poor. In 1993, blue-collar criminals stole $15.3 billion but in that same year white-collar criminals stole $200 billion through embezzlement and fraud. In terms of violent crime, 23,271 people were murdered that year by street criminals, but the decisions made by high-value corporations led to the deaths of at least 318,368 people through worker safety violations, pollution, etc. Why are we conditioned to believe crime is limited to the lower and middle classes? Why is that when a white-collar worker is taken to court they gets far less media coverage than that of their blue-collared counterpart? The way the general public perceives crime is classist to say the very least.

Take the following statistic as an example. South Africa holds a reputation for having the highest rape incidence in the world, at 500,000 annually. One associates the country's high crime rates with the disproportionate levels of inequality that have ravaged the country since the apartheid era. In 2011, it was found that the average annual income of white households was at least six times higher than that of black households. Is this what led to the murder rate in 2013 of 33 per 100,000 people being more than five times higher than the global average of 6.2 per 100,000? It is perceived to be so. For years now worsening poverty, unemployment and inequality have seen crime rates grow, with violent crime especially on the rise, seeing 49 people murdered every day in South Africa.

But in Sweden, a country of perceived wealth, high GDP and income equality, also reported among those countries with the highest incidence of rape in the world, with 46 rape cases per 100,000 in 2009. How is this so, you ask, given the general patterns seen around the world that link high levels of poverty with crime? Turns out that wealth distribution in Sweden is not as equal as often thought . For a small country, Sweden has a relatively high number of millionaires and ranks among the top 20 nations for ultra-high net worth individuals. The growth in inequality in Sweden since the 1980s has in fact been the largest among all OECD countries .

So, is it not so much the level of abject poverty but more the level of income inequality that lead to high crime rates in a country?

The reaction to the recent financial recession in the United States tells us that yes, this is indeed the case. According to official FBI statistics , crime rates actually dropped across the country in 2009, despite the fact they had been gradually increasing in the lead up to the financial meltdown. Murder, rape, assault, theft, robbery - you name it, the incidences of it fell across the board, destroying the idea that the root cause of crime lies in poverty and rather, affirming that it lies in widespread income equality. This too was seen during the recession of 1893, in 1907, the Great Depression of the 1930s. In all of these economic catastrophes, crime did not increase at all, showing that, as inequality between the rich and the poor shrunk, so too did the number of crimes committed.

So, what can we take from this? Is the answer to preventing crime such as robbery and break-ins improving public education, installing better security screens in our homes, or hiring security guards? Apparently not. It seems we need to focus more on lessening income inequality in countries around the world, targeting social justice and poverty in the fight against crime. In this way, we will perhaps be able to see a vast reduction in the instances of crime, both violent and non-violent, around the world - and especially in poorer countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How big is income inequality as a determinant of crime rates?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The link between poverty and crime is a subject that has been examined by sociologists, governments and organizations such as the World Bank and United Nations for decades now.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Common Challenge: Geography and Inequality in Thailand and America

# data[].attributes.subject
A Common Challenge: Geography and Inequality in Thailand and America

# data[].attributes.body
Source : The Asia Foundation
Credibility Evaluation : Group9 (Blog Articles)
Factual Reporting : High
Comment : Shows comparison between two countries which is a new perspective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Economic inequality has become a major roadblock in Thailand's path to prosperity and democracy. The massive development gap between the prosperous central and eastern seaboards and outlying agricultural regions has been a source of political division and unmet economic potential for decades. In Thailand's northeast, the 20 provinces commonly known as Isan, home to a third of the nation's population, have for generations been ground zero for this daunting national challenge.

Thailand is not alone in this problem. As an upper-middle-income country, it is confronting circumstances that often come with growing national wealth: rising production costs that discourage investors, an aging workforce, outdated infrastructure, and growing inequality. Rising incomes have made many people better off, but rising wages have made Thailand less competitive in export-oriented manufacturing. Thailand's push to compete in higher-value-added sectors has led to the concentration of infrastructure investment in coastal areas and an education system that prioritizes high-performing schools, especially in technology and science, instead of raising the standards of basic universal education. For Thailand's journey towards high-income status, the northeast is often seen as a burden, exacerbating unfair stereotypes and political divisions.

There is another country (that I know well) where regional disparities and growing inequality have become a central domestic challenge and a source of political discord. Agricultural heartlands, far from coastal urban centers, have been in long-term relative decline. Unable to keep up with the rapid pace of economic and social change, these agricultural regions have seen their young people and many of their most capable citizens leave for a brighter future. A single country, with two divergent regions-a heartland frustrated by stagnant or declining incomes and a growing sense of vulnerability, and more prosperous coastal regions that are increasingly disconnected from the "fly-over" regions in the heartland. The result is a deeply divided country, with increasingly tumultuous politics.

The country I'm describing is, of course, the United States, and its similarities to Thailand and Thai politics are striking. In the U.S., working-class family incomes have been stagnant for decades, and only recently recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. Wealth has become increasingly concentrated in coastal cities, as "rust belt" states like Michigan and Ohio and agricultural states like Nebraska and Mississippi have fallen further behind. In 2015, for example, the average income of the five wealthiest American states-all northeastern, coastal states-was 70 percent more than the five poorest-all rural, agricultural states. In 1980, it was just 46 percent. Social mobility in the U.S. has been in decline as well. In The Fading American Dream, Chetty et al. cite statistics showing that the percentage of offspring with higher incomes than their parents has been in steady decline since the 1950s.

Lagging regions and growing inequality are confronting Thailand and the United States with many of the same policy challenges. I'm currently reading The Forgotten Americans: An Economic Agenda for a Divided Nation, by the Brookings Institution's Elizabeth Sawhill. Concerned by growing political divisions, Sawhill has sought to better understand the situation of working- and middle-class families in America's rural and midwestern heartlands. "Too many Americans," she argues, "feel they have been left behind by an economy undergoing rapid change. And the lack of well-paid jobs is at the heart of that problem." She documents this widening gap in indicators such as falling life expectancy, declining workforce participation, and the spread of single-parent households. What to do about it, and particularly the role of government, has been at the heart of America's divided politics, and was a major factor in the 2016 U.S. elections. Sawhill proposes policies and programs that align with the culture and values of these regions, including improved training and education, tax credits to increase wages, and a social safety net that incentivizes education and healthy families.

These debates in the United States have clear parallels in Thailand. The Asia Foundation's newly released study, Thailand's Inequality: Myths and Realities of Isan, attempts to move beyond the antagonisms roiling contemporary Thai politics to understand the real-life challenges that people in this region are facing. (For an overview of the report, check out the most recent post by my colleague Dr. Rattana Lao.) For example, most of the roughly eight million farmers in Isan still earn their livelihoods from unirrigated land with poor soil. With unpredictable rainfall and depressed crop prices becoming the norm, farming families in Isan are falling deeply into debt. By our estimate, 88 percent of households in Isan are in debt by an average of 75 percent of their annual income.

The study also examines how people view government programs, and how much impact these programs have actually had on reducing the vulnerability of this disadvantaged population. More than any other segment of Thailand's population, the people of Isan must rely on government programs to survive. Over the past 15 years, successive administrations have introduced wide-ranging programs and policies to improve the lives of those who are not benefiting from Thailand's prosperity, and by some measures, Thailand has been moderately successful in reducing inequality. From 1990 to 2014, income inequality actually declined by 38 percent, and Thailand's 2017 Gini Coefficient of 36.5 puts it in the middle of the pack of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

But behind these numbers, the Thai government also faces significant trade-offs. Many experts point to Thailand's declining economic growth as the nation's central challenge, arguing that public policies and investments should focus on Thailand's more productive sectors and regions to help the Kingdom emerge from its looming "middle-income trap." Policy debates often deploy the politically charged term "populism" to criticize government programs for people in lagging regions, implying that their purpose is to buy votes. This oversimplification distracts from the real issue: how to integrate lagging regions into the national economy so the whole country benefits.

The biggest consequence of regional disparities in Thailand has been enduring political instability. For the past 15 years, Thai politics have been buffeted-and, indeed, transformed-by bitter partisan conflicts between forces representing the interests of lagging peripheral regions and those representing political constituencies centered in Bangkok, including the public sector and the military. Thailand's recent political struggles have had a detrimental impact on the whole country. If Thailand is going to advance to high-income status in the coming decades, it must resolve the problems caused by regional disparity.

As I argued in my last post, Thai politics may finally be moving toward a more forward-looking debate on inequality. In the 2019 election, nearly all political parties had planks in their platforms addressing regional disparities, and they all proposed initiatives to improve poorer people's livelihoods and expand the social safety net. There is clearly a growing political consensus that policies and programs to better integrate Isan into Thailand's economy are a legitimate use of government resources.

The experiences of both Thailand and the United States show that the problem of lagging regions and inequality, if unaddressed, will sow the seeds of political division and turbulent partisan politics. And that's not good for any country, especially one trying to escape the "middle-income trap." In Thailand, the best-case scenario for all Thais is to ensure that Isan becomes a productive and prosperous region that can contribute to Thailand's progress towards high-income status and lay to rest the instability and divisions of the past.

Perhaps the U.S. and Thailand are on a similar journey.

Thomas Parks is The Asia Foundation's country representative in Thailand. He can be reached at thomas.parks@asiafoundation.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author, not those of The Asia Foundation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Common Challenge: Geography and Inequality in Thailand and America | The Asia Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Economic inequality has become a major roadblock in Thailand's path to prosperity and democracy. The massive development gap between the prosperous central and eastern seaboards and outlying agricultural regions has been a source of political division and unmet economic potential for decades.

# data[].attributes.headline
Report : Thailand most unequal country in 2018

# data[].attributes.subject
Report : Thailand most unequal country in 2018

# data[].attributes.body
Source : Bangkok Post
Credibility Evaluation : Group6 (News and Topical Stories from Quality Sources)
Source Bias : Low
Factual Reporting : High

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Report: Thailand most unequal country in 2018

Thailand has overtaken Russia and India as the most unequal country in the latest survey by a Swiss bank.

Banyong Pongpanich, chairman of Phatra Securities, posted on Facebook on Wednesday the findings of the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2018 conducted on 40 countries.

He expressed concern about the trend. Two years ago, Thailand ranked third in the report, after Russia and India.

"In 2016, the 1% richest Thais (500,000 people) owned 58.0% of the country's wealth. In 2018, they controlled 66.9%, overtaking their peers in Russia whose wealth share fell from 78% to 57.1%," he wrote.

The richest in Turkey also did well this year even though the economy was bad. "The wealthiest people there control 54.1%, outstripping second-ranked India, which fell to the fourth from 58.4% to 51.5% this year," he wrote.

Apart from these four, there are no other countries in the world where the richest 1% controlled more than half of their countries' wealth.

The most equal countries are Belgium, where the top 1% had 20.1%, followed by Australia (22.4%).

At the other end of the scale, the 10% poorest Thais had 0% wealth. Mr Banyong noted if debts are taken into consideration, their net worth might be negative.

Meanwhile, 50% of the poorest Thais (25 million people) had 1.7% of the country's wealth while 70% (35 million) controlled 5%.

My Banyong pointed out the Gini index also confirms Thailand's rankings. It stood at a whopping 90.2, where 100 means one person has it all and 0 means everyone has the same share.

To solve the problem, he suggested neoliberalism and welfare to push both growth and wealth distribution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Report: Thailand most unequal country in 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Report: Thailand most unequal country in 2018 Thailand has overtaken Russia and India as the most unequal country in the latest survey by a Swiss bank. Banyong Pongpanich, chairman of Phatra Securities, posted on Facebook on Wednesday the findings of the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2018 conducted on 40 countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Source : Kyoto review of Southeast Asia
Credibility Evaluation : Group5 (Reference Works)
Factual Reporting : Though offers a lot of facts, there are some certain words showing personal thoughts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Writing in Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville famously declared the 'general equality of conditions' the foundation of American democracy. For Thailand, it is different, for it is the general inequality of condition that defines it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tackling Poverty and Inequality in Thailand

# data[].attributes.subject
Tackling Poverty and Inequality in Thailand

# data[].attributes.body
Source : World Bank
Credibility Evaluation : Group6 (Topical Stories from Quality Sources)
Factual Reporting : High

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tackling Poverty and Inequality in Thailand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thailand has successfully reduced poverty over the past three decades from over 65 percent in 1988 to under 10 percent in 2018.

# data[].attributes.headline
Extreme Inequality, Democratisation and Class Struggles in Thailand

# data[].attributes.subject
Extreme Inequality, Democratisation and Class Struggles in Thailand

# data[].attributes.body
Source : World Inequality Lab
Credibility Evaluation : Group1 (Scholarly Article)
Factual Reporting : High

# data[].attributes.headline
ไทยแลนด์ดินอดนแห่งความเหลื่อมล้ำ! เมื่อรายได้ การศึกษา โอกาส แม้กระทั่งท้องถนน ก็ไม่เห็นหัวคนจน

# data[].attributes.subject
ไทยแลนด์ดินอดนแห่งความเหลื่อมล้ำ! เมื่อรายได้ การศึกษา โอกาส แม้กระทั่งท้องถนน ก็ไม่เห็นหัวคนจน

# data[].attributes.body
Source : The Momentum
Credibility Evaluation : Group6 (News)
Source Bias : Low
Factual Reporting : High since all the information is based on the conducted interview of other people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ตั้งแต่เริ่มปี 2017 ประเด็นเรื่องความเหลื่อมล้ำเป็นประเด็นที่ถกเถียงไปทั่วโลก เพราะโลกในยุคโลกาภิวัตน์กำลังทิ้งคนจนไว้ข้างหลังมากขึ้นเรื่อยๆ และสิ่งนี้ได้สะท้อนออกมาผ่านผลโหวต Brexit และการเลือกตั้งประธานาธิบดีสหรัฐอเมริกาครั้งที่ผ่านมา ที่คนหมดหวังกับการเมืองในระบบ

ประเด็นนี้ถูกหยิบยกไปพูดในการประชุมสภาเศรษฐกิจโลกในปีนี้ ที่เมืองดาวอส ประเทศสวิตเซอร์แลนด์เช่นกัน เพราะรายงานของ Oxfam ปี 2016 เปิดเผยตัวเลขที่น่าตกใจว่า มหาเศรษฐีโลก 8 คน ครองทรัพย์สินเท่ากับคนจนที่สุด 3,600 ล้านคน ซึ่งเท่ากับจำนวนประชากรกว่าครึ่งโลก มหาเศรษฐีเหล่านี้สามารถเพิ่มพูนความมั่งคั่งได้อย่างรวดเร็ว โดยโลกมีมหาเศรษฐีระดับล้านล้านดอลลาร์สหรัฐเพียงแค่ในช่วง 25 ปีที่ผ่านมา

แต่ในฐานล่างสุดของโครงสร้างสังคม ประชากรโลก 1 ใน 9 คน ยังเข้านอนด้วยความหิวทุกคืน และ 1 ใน 10 ของพวกเราทุกคนยังมีรายได้น้อยกว่า 2 ดอลลาร์สหรัฐต่อวัน

ตัวเลขเหล่านี้ไม่ได้สะท้อนว่า ความเหลื่อมล้ำเพิ่งเกิดขึ้นไม่นาน เพราะแท้จริงแล้วตัวเลขที่แสดงความเหลื่อมล้ำแสดงให้เราเห็นตั้งแต่ปี 2009 จน คริสทีน ลาการ์ด (Christine Lagarde) ประธานและกรรมการผู้จัดการ IMF พูดกลางที่ประชุมสภาเศรษฐกิจโลกในปีนี้ว่า "ฉันเคยเตือนทุกคนแล้วเกี่ยวกับภัยอันตรายของความเหลื่อมล้ำในปี 2013 แต่ไม่มีใครฟัง"

ฉันเคยเตือนทุกคนแล้วเกี่ยวกับภัยอันตรายของความเหลื่อมล้ำในปี 2013 แต่ไม่มีใครฟัง

ประเทศไทยติดอันดับ 3 ประเทศที่มีความเหลื่อมล้ำมากที่สุดในโลก

ตัวเลขข้างต้นได้สะท้อนปัญหาความเหลื่อมล้ำทางเศรษฐกิจของประชากรโลก ขณะเดียวกันประเทศไทยก็ถือเป็นอีกประเทศหนึ่งที่กำลังเผชิญกับปัญหาความเหลื่อมล้ำทางเศรษฐกิจรุนแรงมากขึ้นเรื่อยๆ

โดยประเทศไทยขยับขึ้นจากอันดับ 11 เป็นอันดับ 3 ของประเทศที่มีความเหลื่อมล้ำมากที่สุดในโลก รองจากรัสเซีย และอินเดีย และใน 5 ปีที่ผ่านมา คนเพียง 1% เป็นเจ้าของความมั่งคั่งของคนทั้งประเทศรวมกัน มหาเศรษฐีระดับพันล้านในประเทศไทยเพิ่มขึ้นจาก 5 คนในปี 2551 เป็น 28 คนในปี 2558

แต่คนไทย 10% หรือประมาณ 7 ล้านคน ยังมีชีวิตอยู่ใต้เส้นความยากจนคนไทยมากกว่า 3 ใน 4 ไม่ได้เป็นเจ้าของที่ดินใดๆ เลย โฉนดที่ดิน 61% ของประเทศไทยอยู่ในมือประชากร 10%

เราอยู่ได้ไหมโดยไม่พึ่งพาคนที่มีอะไรน้อยกว่าเรา ซึ่งมันเป็นไปไม่ได้
ดังนั้นเราจึงจำเป็นต้องสนใจว่าเขาเป็นอยู่อย่างไร ถ้าเขาคับข้องใจ เราก็จะแย่ตาม
ความเหลื่อมล้ำคือปัญหาของทั้งคนรวยและคนจน

ความเหลื่อมล้ำคือปัญหาของคนรวยและคนจน

เมื่อเราอยู่ในระบอบเศรษฐกิจแบบทุนนิยมที่เปิดโอกาสให้มีการแข่งขัน และให้คนหากำไรจากเศรษฐกิจแบบการตลาด ดังนั้นผลลัพธ์ที่ออกมาจึงย่อมไม่เท่ากัน คำถามคือเมื่อเราเลือกที่จะอยู่ในระบอบเศรษฐกิจแบบนี้แล้ว เราจะมองหรือจัดการอย่างไรกับปัญหาความเหลื่อมล้ำที่เกิดขึ้น

สฤณี อาชวานันทกุล นักวิชาการด้านเศรษฐศาสตร์ กล่าวในงาน 'เท่าไหร่ (ถึง) เท่ากัน' ที่จัดโดย Oxfam ประเทศไทย เมื่อวันที่ 2 กุมภาพันธ์ 2017 ว่า "เราอยู่ในระบอบทุนนิยม ยังไงผลลัพธ์มันไม่เท่ากันอยู่แล้ว ในเมื่อเราเลือกที่จะอยู่ในระบอบนี้แล้ว และคำตอบต่อเรื่องนี้สามารถมองได้ 2 มุม มุมแรกคือ 'ศีลธรรม' ปัจจุบันเรามีคนจำนวนมากที่เห็นใจคนอื่น รู้สึกสงสารคนอื่น และสนใจว่าตอนนี้สถานการณ์ของคนมีรายได้น้อยเป็นอย่างไร อีกมุมหนึ่งคือ เราต้องคิดว่าเราอยู่ได้ไหมโดยไม่พึ่งพาคนที่มีอะไรน้อยกว่าเรา ซึ่งมันเป็นไปไม่ได้ ดังนั้นเราจึงจำเป็นต้องสนใจว่าเขาเป็นอยู่อย่างไร ถ้าเขาคับข้องใจ เราก็จะแย่ตาม ความเหลื่อมล้ำคือปัญหาของทั้งคนรวยและคนจน"

เมื่อมนุษย์คืออีกทรัพยากรที่สำคัญที่สุดในระบอบเศรษฐกิจ ความเหลื่อมล้ำที่เกิดขึ้นจะกระทบต่อเศรษฐกิจทั้งโครงสร้าง และกระทบต่อทั้งคนรวยและคนจน สฤณีอธิบายว่า "ความเหลื่อมล้ำที่เกิดขึ้นเท่ากับเราทิ้งคนจำนวนมากให้ไม่มีศักยภาพ ที่จะเป็นพลเมืองที่สร้างผลผลิตให้กับสังคม ปล่อยให้สมองของมนุษย์สูญเปล่า เราควรจะสนใจการสร้างเศรษฐกิจฐานกว้างให้เขาขึ้นมาเป็นประชาชนที่มีประสิทธิภาพ ไม่อย่างนั้นเศรษฐกิจจะเปราะบาง สังคมขาดความหลากหลาย ซึ่งส่งผลต่อการคิดค้นนวัตกรรม"

ดังเช่นตัวเลขความเหลื่อมล้ำข้างต้นที่แสดงว่า ความเหลื่อมล้ำทางเศรษฐกิจที่กว้างขึ้นเรื่อยๆ ส่วนหนึ่งเกิดจากความเหลื่อมล้ำทางโอกาสทางการศึกษา คนรายได้น้อยมีโอกาสเข้าศึกษามหาวิทยาลัยต่างจากคนรายได้สูงถึง 19 เท่า

ประเทศเราเน้นกับความเจริญ เราภูมิใจกับค่าจีดีพี แต่ไม่ได้ดูค่าเฉลี่ยรายได้ และการกระจายโอกาสในสังคม

ความเหลื่อมล้ำสามารถแก้ได้โดยเริ่มจากตัวเอง

เมื่อเรามองตัวเลขที่สะท้อนความเหลื่อมล้ำในสังคมทั้งมิติเศรษฐกิจ สังคม และเพศ ที่ดูแล้วคนรวยกับคนจนนั้นจะมีความเป็นอยู่ที่แตกต่างที่ถ่างและห่างออกไปเรื่อยๆ เราอาจจะรู้สึกว่าการแก้ปัญหาความเหลื่อมล้ำนั้นเป็นเรื่องของรัฐเท่านั้นที่จะต้องเข้ามากระจายความเท่าเทียมให้กับสังคม แต่สฤณีชี้ให้เห็นว่า แท้จริงแล้วนอกจากจะเป็นหน้าที่ของรัฐแล้ว ยังต้องเริ่มที่ตัวเราและภาคเอกชนด้วยเช่นกัน

"หากเรามองบริษัทเป็นหนึ่งหน่วย เราจะเห็นว่ามันมีส่วนที่ทำให้ความเหลื่อมล้ำมากขึ้นหรือน้อยลง เริ่มจากปัจจัยภายในบริษัทอย่างช่องว่างของเงินเดือนผู้บริหารกับลูกจ้าง ซึ่งประเทศไทยคืออีกประเทศที่มีช่องว่างของรายได้ระหว่างลูกจ้างกับผู้บริหารติดอันดับโลก ส่วนปัจจัยภายนอกบริษัทคือ บริษัทจ่ายค่าวัตถุดิบในราคาที่เป็นธรรมแค่ไหน ละเมิดสิทธิแรงงานหรือเปล่า สิ่งเหล่านี้คือความเหลื่อมล้ำที่เกิดขึ้นจากการดำเนินธุรกิจ แล้วแต่ละบริษัทเห็นความสำคัญมากน้อยแค่ไหน"

แต่เมื่อถามว่าเป็นหน้าที่ของบริษัทหรือเปล่า เพราะบางบริษัทอาจมองว่า การทำตามกฎหมายที่รัฐกำหนดก็น่าจะเพียงพอ "ถ้าเรามองบริษัทเป็นคน คำถามคือเราอยู่คนเดียวได้ไหมโดยไม่พึ่งพาคนอื่น บริษัทอาจจะมองว่าแค่ทำตามกฎหมายที่รัฐกำหนด แต่ประเด็นคือรัฐก็ไม่ได้ทำหน้าที่นี้ได้ดี"

คนจะมองว่าการช่วยเหลือคนจนนั้นเป็นลักษณะสงเคราะห์ แต่การช่วยเหลือแบบนี้ไม่ได้เปิดโอกาสให้เรามีสิทธิมีเสียงมากขึ้น ซึ่งมันไม่ใช่การช่วยเหลือที่แท้จริง

ภาครัฐเน้นแต่ความเจริญจนลืมกระจายรายได้และโอกาส

ทุกวันนี้มองไปรอบตัวจะเห็นการก่อสร้างอาคารสูง ถนน และรถไฟฟ้าจำนวนมาก ที่เป็นตัวบ่งบอกความเจริญของเมือง แต่ปัญหาความยากจนไม่เคยหายไปจากประเทศไทย ชัชชาติ สิทธิพันธุ์ อดีตรัฐมนตรีกระทรวงคมนาคม ซึ่งเป็นอดีตคนที่ทำงานในภาครัฐ เปิดเผยในงาน 'เท่าไหร่ (ถึง) เท่ากัน' ว่า

"ผมว่าบทบาทของภาครัฐมีสองส่วนคือ สร้างความเจริญ และต้องย้อนกลับมามองว่าความเจริญนั้นส่งผลให้คนจนมากน้อยแค่ไหน แต่ประเทศเราเน้นกับความเจริญ เราภูมิใจกับค่าจีดีพี แต่ไม่ได้ดูค่าเฉลี่ยรายได้ และการกระจายโอกาสในสังคม"

ชัชชาติยังพูดถึงตัวอย่างที่สะท้อนความเหลื่อมล้ำในสังคมไทยที่เห็นได้ชัดคือ การคมนาคม

"การคมนาคมคือสุดยอดของความเหลื่อมล้ำ คนอาจจะมองว่าความเหลื่อมล้ำมีเพียงด้านการศึกษาและรายได้ แต่ท้องถนนคือส่วนผสมของความไม่เท่าเทียมในสังคมมากที่สุด โครงการรถเมล์ไม่เคยทำสำเร็จ แต่โครงการรถไฟฟ้ามูลค่า 7 แสนล้านบาททำสำเร็จ ทั้งๆ ที่คนใช้รถไฟฟ้ามีเพียง 7 แสนคน และคนใช้รถเมล์เยอะกว่า เรื่องพื้นฐานที่สุดเรายังทำไม่ได้เลย"

ท้องถนนคือส่วนผสมของความไม่เท่าเทียมในสังคมมากที่สุด
โครงการรถเมล์ไม่เคยทำสำเร็จ แต่โครงการรถไฟฟ้ามูลค่า 7 แสนล้านบาททำสำเร็จ
ทั้งๆ ที่คนใช้รถไฟฟ้ามีเพียง 7 แสนคน และคนใช้รถเมล์เยอะกว่า
เรื่องพื้นฐานที่สุดเรายังทำไม่ได้เลย

ส่วนในฐานะผู้บริหารชัชชาติมองว่า นอกจากกฎระเบียบในองค์กรแล้ว เราต้องเห็นความสำคัญของชีวิตคนอื่น "ความเหลื่อมล้ำไม่ได้แก้จากบนลงล่างเท่านั้น เราสามารถแก้ได้ที่ตัวเรา เราต้องเห็นความสำคัญของชีวิตคนอื่น ซึ่งมันเริ่มได้จากการปลูกฝัง อย่าไปมองโจทย์นี้แค่จะต้องใช้คนรวยเท่าไรมาช่วยคนจน"

สิ่งนี้สะท้อนออกมาในความคิดเห็นของ นุชนารถ แท่นทอง ตัวแทนของพี่น้องสลัม 4 ภาคเช่นกัน เธอกล่าวว่า "เราไม่ได้ยากจนแค่ทางด้านรายได้ แต่เรายากจนทั้งทางโอกาสในสังคมและการศึกษา นโยบายรัฐทุกวันนี้ยังไม่ได้ทำเพื่อคนส่วนใหญ่"

เธอมองว่าความเหลื่อมล้ำในสังคมไทยนั้นไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องรายได้ แต่มันยังครอบคลุมถึงมิติอื่นๆ "ความเหลื่อมล้ำที่เกิดขึ้นในสังคมอาจจะเกิดขึ้นจากเราเองได้ไหมอย่างเช่นความเห็นแก่ตัว ถ้าพวกเราเห็นแก่ตัวกันน้อยลง ให้เกียรติกันมากขึ้น คนจะมองว่าการช่วยเหลือคนจนนั้นเป็นลักษณะสงเคราะห์ แต่การช่วยเหลือแบบนี้ไม่ได้เปิดโอกาสให้เรามีสิทธิมีเสียงมากขึ้น ซึ่งมันไม่ใช่การช่วยเหลือที่แท้จริง"

เมื่อเรามองเห็นปัญหาว่า ความเหลื่อมล้ำในสังคมไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องของรายได้มากหรือน้อย แต่รวมถึงความไม่เท่าเทียมทางโอกาสในการเข้าถึงการศึกษา โอกาสในการถือครองที่ดินเพื่ออยู่อาศัยและทำมาหากิน จนกระทั่งเรื่องประจำวันอย่างโอกาสในการใช้ท้องถนนที่เป็นทรัพย์สินของทุกคน

ดังนั้นเมื่อเราเลือกที่จะอยู่ในระบบเศรษฐกิจที่เป็นการแข่งขัน การกระจาย 'โอกาส' ในระบบการแข่งขันจึงเป็นสิ่งที่สำคัญ

ภาพประกอบ: Karin Foxx
อ้างอิง: - https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/eight-men-have-the-same-wealth-as-3-6-billion-of-the-worlds-poorest-people-we-must-rebalance-this-unjust-economy
- https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/christine-lagarde-to-davos-leaders-i-warned-about-the-dangers-of-inequality-in-2013-and-nobody-listened

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ไทยแลนด์ดินแดนแห่งความเหลื่อมล้ำ! เมื่อรายได้ การศึกษา โอกาส แม้กระทั่งท้องถนน ก็ไม่เห็นหัวคนจน | THE MOMENTUM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ตั้งแต่เริ่มปี 2017 ประเด็นเรื่องความเหลื่อมล้ำเป็นประเด็นที่ถกเถียงไปทั่วโลก เพราะโลกในยุคโลกาภิวัตน์กำลังทิ้งคนจนไว้ข้างหลังมากขึ้นเรื่อยๆ และสิ่งนี้ได้สะท้อนออกมาผ่านผลโหวต Brexit และการเลือกตั้งประธานาธิบดีสหรัฐอเมริกาครั้งที่ผ่านมา ที่คนหมดหวังกับการเมืองในระบบ ประเด็นนี้ถูกหยิบยกไปพูดในการประชุมสภาเศรษฐกิจโลกในปีนี้ ที่เมืองดาวอส ประเทศสวิตเซอร์แลนด์เช่นกัน เพราะรายงานของ Oxfam ปี 2016 เปิดเผยตัวเลขที่น่าตกใจว่า มหาเศรษฐีโลก 8 คน ครองทรัพย์สินเท่ากับคนจนที่สุด 3,600 ล้านคน ซึ่งเท่ากับจำนวนประชากรกว่าครึ่งโลก มหาเศรษฐีเหล่านี้สามารถเพิ่มพูนความมั่งคั่งได้อย่างรวดเร็ว โดยโลกมีมหาเศรษฐีระดับล้านล้านดอลลาร์สหรัฐเพียงแค่ในช่วง 25 ปีที่ผ่านมา แต่ในฐานล่างสุดของโครงสร้างสังคม ประชากรโลก 1 ใน 9 คน ยังเข้านอนด้วยความหิวทุกคืน และ 1 ใน 10 ของพวกเราทุกคนยังมีรายได้น้อยกว่า 2 ดอลลาร์สหรัฐต่อวัน ตัวเลขเหล่านี้ไม่ได้สะท้อนว่า ความเหลื่อมล้ำเพิ่งเกิดขึ้นไม่นาน เพราะแท้จริงแล้วตัวเลขที่แสดงความเหลื่อมล้ำแสดงให้เราเห็นตั้งแต่ปี 2009 จน คริสทีน ลาการ์ด (Christine Lagarde)

# data[].attributes.body
Source : Asian Development Bank
Credibility Evaluation : Group3 (Government Resources)
Factual Reporting : High
Comment : The data are statistics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The latest available statistical data on poverty, SDGs, and socioeconomic development in Thailand.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reducing Poverty and improving equity in Thailand : Why it still matters

# data[].attributes.subject
Reducing Poverty and improving equity in Thailand : Why it still matters

# data[].attributes.body
Source : World Bank Blogs
Credibility Evaluation : Group9  (Blog Article)
Factual Reporting : Rather high since the blog is based on seven statistics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reducing poverty and improving equity in Thailand: Why it still matters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even though Thailand is now an upper-middle income country that has nearly eradicated extreme poverty, data show that poverty reduction has slowed down and have been uneven across the country.

# data[].attributes.body
Source : Thailand Development Research Institute
Credibility Evaluation : Group6 (Topical Stories from Quality Sources)
Factual Reporting : has both references to both actual events and statistics but there is also personal opinion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Somchai Jitsuchon

One reason for optimism over inequality in Thailand is that awareness of the problem is far higher these days. And not only in Thailand: the whole world now pays serious attention to the issue as a fundamental problem afflicting modern mankind.

Inequality is more than a money matter. Inequality is unethical. It crushes the basic principle that every person should have equal opportunities. It is also the root cause of many structural problems in Thai society. The lack of social and political stability, the low quality of democracy, the flesh trade and human trafficking, crime, corruption ... you name it. These social evils are different manifestations of structural problems that share the same root cause - inequality.
The growing awareness of that fact is encouraging. But awareness alone is not enough. We need to go beyond passive acknowledgment, old debates, and piecemeal policies, to push for structural change. If we want to make our society fair, equal, democratic, innovative and safe, we need to tackle inequality by making sure that every person - regardless of gender, race or belief - has equal access to life opportunities and justice.
Doing so first requires that "we know what we should know" about inequality, which is the focus of this article. In the article that will follow, I will turn to "we do what we should do".

We have known for a long time that inequality manifests in many forms, including geographical disparity and social exclusion of marginalised people such as the stateless, migrant and domestic workers.

As to the causes of inequality, the familiar ones range from intergenerational inequality when rich-poor gaps transmit from generation to generation, disparity in education in both quality and the level completed, unequal access both to credit and the skills necessary for a modern economy, and legal discrimination.

Social connectedness ("who you know") is another factor determining unequal outcomes both economically and politically.

All this is "old knowledge". We have known it for ages and yet knowing it does not seem to enable us to reduce or prevent inequality from rising. We have to admit that our knowledge of inequality is insufficient. So what more is there to know? I think there are at least six things we should know better about inequality in Thailand.

First, we need to admit that Thailand is among the 10 most unequal countries on this planet for wealth distribution. It is reasonable to think that there must be more structural problems behind the above-mentioned usual causes of inequality. I believe these problems lie in our social and political system. Many research studies have pointed to this aberration. They reveal the country's extreme concentration of economic power controlled by a handful of billionaires, declining competitiveness in the private sector, and worsening corruption. Corruption has become commonplace, and very easy to conduct, most notably by the well-connected higher strata of society. This way of accumulating wealth deepens inequality even further.

Second, while the gaps between Thais in accessing "basic" social services such as education and healthcare narrow, the gaps in accessing "high quality" services are widening. For example, children from wealthy families have more opportunities to enter prestige universities and gain higher knowledge and skills. Richer Thais have more access to premium healthcare services, and live longer. Evidence abounds that gaps between the very wealthy and the middle class and lower strata in society are growing ever wider.

Third, we should be aware that Thailand may now host a substantial number of the chronically poor. I began to suspect this after seeing increases in the poverty rate in 2016 and 2018 despite considerable economic growth of over 3-4%. If this is true, as much as 10% of the population may have fallen into chronic poverty, which would make tackling inequality even more difficult.

Fourth, disruptive technology may be very harmful and worsen inequality more than did any past technological breakthrough.

Fifth, many countries in Europe with low inequality have won admiration from Thais. Yet few know that the use of fiscal policy to provide universal social welfare benefits across the board is the main reason for their equitable societies. This ignorance has resulted in resistance to universal welfare among many Thais.

In low-inequality countries, welfare benefits are not considered charity but a legal right. Everyone in the country is entitled to that same right. Every child has the same access to free quality education to high school level at a minimum, with the aim of helping everyone to realise their full potential. The universal welfare benefits cover sickness, unemployment, and disabilities. Such thorough benefits provide equal opportunities and strong social safety nets for all, so people do not have to fear the uncertainties that life may bring. Such life security is good for business too. Entrepreneurs can focus solely on managing business risks as their lives are already protected by the comprehensive social welfare system. That can bring more investment, including highquality small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which in turn can help make universal welfare affordable.

Sixth, lack of cash is not just a definition of poverty, it is a major constraint in itself. Policymakers need to realise this fact to form effective poverty alleviation measures. If the poor receive money or other forms of financial aid regularly and sufficiently, they can use the cash to break the chains and rise above poverty by themselves. For example, they can use the money directly to improve their skills and knowledge or to invest in their businesses.

A level playing field, comprehensive welfare services for life security across the board, and investment in human capital without discrimination are the key solutions.

Thailand needs to make this happen if we want to eradicate inequality. When that happens, an open society and democracy are not far behind.
Somchai Jitsuchon, PhD, is research director for Inclusive Development Policy at the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). Policy analyses from the TDRI appear in the Bangkok Post on alternate Wednesdays.
Related Article: Thai inequality 2020 (2): What we should do

First Published: Bangkok Post on January 22, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Somchai Jitsuchon One reason for optimism over inequality in Thailand is that awareness of the problem is far higher these days. And not only in Thailand: the whole world now pays serious attention to the issue as a fundamental problem afflicting modern mankind. Inequality is more than a money matter.

# data[].attributes.headline
Timeline : Thailand's turbulent political history

# data[].attributes.subject
Timeline : Thailand's turbulent political history

# data[].attributes.body
Source : Bangkok Post
Credibility Evaluation : Group6 (News)
Source Bias : Slight to moderate liberal bias
Factual Reporting : High

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Timeline: Thailand's turbulent political history

Royal Thai Army soldiers queue up to cast their ballots at a polling station in Bangkok on Sunday during Thailand's general election. (AFP photo)

The country's election Sunday is the first since a 2014 coup. Here is a brief look at two turbulent decades in Thai politics.

2001 - Policeman-turned-billionaire telecoms magnate Thaksin Shinawatra wins at the polls promising social welfare schemes.

2003 - A brutal war on drugs kills upwards of 2,500 people. A year later a crackdown in the Muslim-majority Deep South sparks a renewed insurgency.

2005 - Thaksin repeats electoral triumph, heading up the first civilian administration to complete a four-year term in a history rattled by army takeovers.

2006 - While at the UN in New York, Thaksin is toppled in bloodless coup. A period of protests and violent clashes ensues and historians dub the prolonged instability the "Lost Decade".

2008 - Thaksin is convicted in absentia on corruption charges he says are politically motivated and flees into self-exile.

Anti-Thaksin protesters known as "Yellow Shirts" storm Bangkok's airports, shutting them down for over a week to protest a Thaksin ally as premier -- who is soon removed.

Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva becomes prime minister after a parliamentary vote.

2009 - Pro-Thaksin "Red Shirts" storm a regional summit hosted by Thailand demanding elections and forcing participants to flee by helicopter and boat.

2010 - More than 90 people are killed as the army -- led by current junta leader Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha -- opens fire on Red Shirts protesting in downtown Bangkok.

2011 - Fresh elections in 2011 see Thaksin's younger sister Yingluck emerge as Thailand's first female prime minister.

2014 - Anti-Yingluck demonstrators hold months-long protests that turn violent. A snap 2014 election is annulled and military seizes power.

2016 - Junta leader Gen Prayut oversees a crackdown on dissent and wins a referendum to change the constitution.

Thailand mourns the death of revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who was seen as a figure of unity over a seven-decade reign.

2017 - Yingluck flees the country to avoid negligence charges and joins brother in self-exile.

2018 - Junta announces elections for next year after repeated delays, lifting hopes as new parties emerge.

2019 - His Majesty King Maha Vajiralongkorn shuts down shock prime ministerial candidacy of older sister Princess Ubolratana, who stood for the Thaksin-linked Thai Raksa Chart party.

March 23, 2019 - On eve of vote, His Majesty sends another message to Thai citizens, urging them to support "good people" and not those who create "chaos".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline: Thailand's turbulent political history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Timeline: Thailand's turbulent political history Royal Thai Army soldiers queue up to cast their ballots at a polling station in Bangkok on Sunday during Thailand's general election. (AFP photo) The country's election Sunday is the first since a 2014 coup. Here is a brief look at two turbulent decades in Thai politics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Poverty, Inequality in Thailand on the Rise, World Bank Says

# data[].attributes.subject
Poverty, Inequality in Thailand on the Rise, World Bank Says

# data[].attributes.body
Source : VOA News
Credibility Evaluation : Group3 (Government Resources)
Factual Reporting : High

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thailand's poverty rate has been rising in recent years despite steady, if slow, overall economic growth, a new World Bank report says, widening the gap between rich and poor in Southeast Asia's second-largest economy.

"Taking the Pulse of Poverty and Inequality in Thailand," launched last week, says the country's poverty rate jumped from 7.2% to 9.8% between 2015 and 2018, adding nearly 2 million new people to the ranks of the poor. Inequality, as measured by household consumption, also spiked in 2016 for the first time in four years and has eased little since.

Analysts see a direct link between those figures and the results of last year's general elections, Thailand's first since a 2014 military coup led by then-General Prayut Chan-ocha, now the country's prime minister.

Pheu Thai, a party tied to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, won the second most votes and the largest share of seats in the popularly elected House of Representatives, the lower house of the National Assembly, with strong support from some of the country's poorest provinces in the North and Northeast.

A junta-appointed Senate and Election Commission finally tipped the contest to form a majority government in Prayut's favor, but the numbers echoed the lasting disaffection of the country's poor.

"Plummeting incomes were clearly a major factor in the opposition's strong showing in the 2019 general election. That is why Pheu Thai did so well - especially given that rural farmers and also urban households continue to be attracted by the populism of Thaksin," said Paul Chambers, a political analyst and lecturer at Thailand's Naresuan University.

Thaksin was first elected prime minister in 2001, after the shock of the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, and reelected four years later only to be kicked out of office by a military coup in 2006. The telecoms tycoon now lives abroad, avoiding a 2008 corruption conviction that he disputes. However, the subsidies, cash transfers and other populist policies he pushed have left him and his proxies with a loyal following among the farmers of Thailand's rural North and Northeast, who feel left behind by an urban elite cloistered mostly in the capital, Bangkok.

"That is partly why Thaksin was able to rise in the early 2000s, because of grievances over this disproportionate allocation of resources," said Harrison Cheng, an associate director with consulting firm Control Risks who follows Thailand.

He said the concentration of wealth and power in Bangkok has continued under Prayut.

The World Bank report backs him up. It shows poverty hovering steadily at about 2% between 2015 and 2018 in Bangkok while rising everywhere else, nowhere more so than in the strife-torn South. Riven by a Muslim insurgency, the South became the country's poorest region in 2017, only just edging out the Northeast with a poverty rate of about 12%. The South again topped the Northeast in 2018 with a poverty rate just over 14%.

The report ascribes the latest rises in poverty and inequality to droughts, slow economic growth and falling incomes among both rural farmers and urban businesses.

The bank says Thailand has now seen four such spikes since 2000, more than any of the other nine Association of Southeast Asian Nations countries.

The report's author, Judy Yang, attributes that, at least in part, to slow wage growth during the period, slower than in any of the bloc's other large economies.

"If you are a household, what really pulls you out of poverty is getting a better-paying job, getting more income, getting labor market income," she said.

What also sets Thailand apart is its political turmoil. The coup-prone country has seen four swings between military and civilian rule since 2006, governments cut short by controversial court orders and several rounds of mass protests, some of them deadly.

The World Bank said many of Thailand's poverty spikes coincided with regional or global financial crises or with drought but added that periods of political instability also tend to depress consumption and investment, which can drive incomes down and poverty rates up.

Cheng, of Control Risks, said his conversations with clients confirm that Thailand's volatile politics have kept many potential investors at bay, holding the economy back.

"A lot of the investors are staying away and taking a wait-and-see approach for a long, long time now," he said.

"If they are not in Thailand already, they will be thinking very seriously about whether they should do so because what if there's a change in government again? What if there are massive street protests like in 2013, 2014? Are you going to repeat the 2010 Bangkok standoff between the Red Shirts and the military?" he added, referring to Thaksin supporters by their color-coded apparel of choice.

Cheng said the constant and sudden turnover in governments has also fostered a habit of short-term policy prescriptions on poverty and inequality that have done more to soothe the symptoms than cure the causes.

Chambers and Cheng agreed that if the latest bout of bad numbers gets worse, Prayut's problems will also be increased by swelling ranks of not just the poor but also of disenchanted voters.

The World Bank report proffers poverty and inequality figures only up to 2018 but adds that "trends beyond this year are not optimistic, given continued low economic growth rates and stagnant wages."

Another severe drought devastated farmers last year as the country's gross domestic product growth rank sank to 2.4%, its lowest since 2014. GDP forecasts for 2020 are even worse, owing much to the novel corona virus outbreak, which has hit the country's important tourism sector hard.

To counter those blows, Prayut's government has ramped up and introduced new social welfare programs for the poorest households and last week approved a stimulus package expected to pump some $12.6 billion into the economy.

The World Bank recommends that authorities continue to strengthen the country's safety net and create better jobs for low-income earners in the short term. In the longer term, it says giving all children equal access to health and education opportunities would be the best way to make future generations more prosperous and more equal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poverty, Inequality in Thailand on the Rise, World Bank Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thailand's poverty rate has been rising in recent years despite steady, if slow, overall economic growth, a new World Bank report says, widening the gap between rich and poor in Southeast Asia's second-largest economy.

# data[].attributes.body
Source : Inequality.org
Credibility Evaluation : Group4 (Reviewed official online document)
Factual Reporting : High since the article does not give any opinion but rather offer statistics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do inequality and health relate? Increasing evidence from scientists the world over indicates that many health outcomes — everything from life expectancy to infant mortality and obesity — can be linked to the level of economic inequality within a given population. Greater economic inequality app…