Introduction. The Problematic: Territorial State, International Capital, and Uneven Industrial Development in Thailand

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Thailand presents a vexingly ‘hybrid’ image of both success and failure. A lay reader of journalistic and academic literature on Thai development could readily be excused for concurring with the opinion of renowned Thai scholar David Wilson, who long ago insisted ‘What damn good is this country—you can’t compare it to anything!’ (Anderson 1978: 193). Indeed, so contradictory are the varying images of the country and the events taking place within it that it often seems Thailand can’t even be compared to itself. This sense of identity crisis has only been heightened by the economic crisis that began in 1996. What had been one of Asia’s miracle economies led the region into bust, leaving many analysts gasping for air. Thus, as the twenty-first century begins, and we look back on the events of the past century, there is a sense of urgency and contentiousness surrounding a very basic question that one might have already expected to be answered: what exactly is this multifaceted and volatile phenomenon called ‘development’ in Thailand, and why does it generate such diverse evaluations? To be sure, some of the contention is due to non-negotiable differences in political perspectives. Yet even granting this, there seems to be less agreement about how to assess development in Thailand than development in many other places. For example, few South Korea scholars, of whatever persuasion, disagree that the country exhibited remarkable and sustained economic growth in recent decades, that this has at least laid the foundations for significant improvements in overall standards of living for most of the population, or that in spite of the crisis the Korean political economy still has substantial potential for further development. Nor, for that matter, do many people disagree that the development process in South Korea was driven forward by an authoritarian state and that issues such as social justice and environmental sustainability must still be addressed. In contrast, interpreters of Thailand’s development experience seem to disagree about such fundamental issues as the importance of state involvement in the process, the degree of well-being which it has bequeathed to the general population, and the future prospects of development.