The Determinants and Distributional Effects of Public Education, Health, and Welfare Spending in Thailand

Abstract

Social spending in Thailand is allocated in response to several demand and supply factors. Globalization and inequality tend to compel the governments, both elected and nonelected, to increase generous education, health, and welfare programs for social sectors that fall behind. An increase in revenue from direct taxes and the previous year's spending level has also had a positive effect on the current rate of public spending on education, health, and welfare in Thailand. Overall public spending on education, health, and welfare is not very well targeted, despite the increase in the shares of education, health, and welfare spending and the recent introduction of new social programs in Thailand. These increases had the stated objective of increasing access of the poor to education, health, and welfare services, including an expansion of basic education from nine to twelve years, a student loan program, a universal health-insurance scheme, and the expansion of other welfare services. Public spending on basic education is primarily propoor, but the disparities in access to education continue to exist at all levels of education. Although the resulting benefit incidence of public spending on health services in 2007 was less prorich compared with the past, the majority of public health spending still favors higher income classes. The social security scheme coverage is also limited to a small section of the Thai labor force. These findings pose a challenge to policymakers, and the author therefore explores their policy implications.

Keywords:

• health
• public spending on education
• social policy
• Thailand
• welfare

Notes

1. Bureau of the Budget, Thailand's Budget in Brief (Bangkok: 2009).

2. Ministry of Public Health, “Thailand Health Profile,” 2008, http://www.moph.co.th/Default/mophhoome/data, 11–12.

3. Social Security Office, Social Security and Welfare Statistics (Bangkok: Living: 2009), 20.

4. National Statistics Office, Thailand's Statistics Yearbook (Bangkok: Living, 2008), 10.

5. David R. Cameron “The Impact of Political Institutions on Public Sector Expansion,” American Political Science Review 98, no. 2 (1984): 1243–1261; Vito Tanzi and Ludger Schuknecth, Public Spending in the 20th Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); and Peter H. Lindert, Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteen Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

6. Anusorn Limmanee, “State Expenditure Determination: Thailand's Economic Spending, 1951–1981” (PhD dissertation, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 1984), 15–31; Jon Blondal and Sang-In Kim, “Budgeting in Thailand,” OECD Journal on Budgeting 5, no. 2 (2006): 10–25; Ponlapat Buracom, “Explaining the Growth of Public Spending in Thailand,” NIDA Development Journal 47, no. 2 (2007), 24–39; and Rangson Thanapornpan, Economic Policy Determinations and Process in Thailand (Bangkok: Thammastat University Press, 1990), 43–56.

7. Adolph Wagner, “Finanzwissenschaft,” in Classics in the Theory of Public Finance, ed. Richard Musgrave and Alan Peacock, 23–46 (London: Macmillan, 1985).

8. Anthony Down, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957); A. H. Meltzer, “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government,” Journal Political Economy 89, no. 2 (1981): 914–927; and A. H. Meltzer and S. F. Richard, “Tests of a Rational Theory of the Size of Government,” Public Choice 41, no. 2 (1983): 403–18.

9. Robert E. McCormick and Robert D. Tollison, Politicians, Legislation, and the Economy (Boston: Nijhoff, 1981), 45–49.

10. Tom W. Rice, “The Determinants of Western European Government Growth,” Comparative Political Studies 19, no. 1 (1986): 233–57.

11. Frank Naert, “Pressure Politics and Government Spending in Belgium,” Public Choice 67, no. 2 (1990): 49–63.

12. Magnus Henrekson, “Swedish Government Growth: A Disequilibrium Analysis,” in Explaining the Growth of Government, ed. J. A. Lybeck and M. Henrekson, 37 (New York: Elsevier, 1988); and Cameron, “The Impact of Political Institutions on Public Sector Expansion,” 1247.

13. Dani Rodrik, “Why do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?” Journal of Political Economy 106, no. 2 (1998): 997. Robert Kaufman and Alex Segura-Ubiergo, “Globalization, Domestic Politics, and Social Spending in Latin America,” World Politics 83, no. 4 (2001): 559. Geoffery Garret and Deborah Mitchell, “Globalization, Government Spending, and Taxation in the OECD,” European Journal of Political Research 39, no. 1 (2001): 148.

14. James M. Buchanan, The Limits of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975); Louise Marshall, “New Evidence of Fiscal Illusion: The 1986 Tax,” American Economic Review 81, no. 2 (1991): 1339; and Wallace E. Oates, “On the Nature and Measurement of Fiscal Illusion: A Survey,” in Taxation and Fiscal Federalism, ed. Geoffrey Brennan 81 (Sydney: Australian National University Press, 1988).

15. Charles E. Lindblom, “The Science of Muddling through,” Public Administration Review 19, no. 1 (1959: 26–34); and Aaron B. Wildavsky, The Politics of Budgetary Process (Boston: Little Brown, 1964).

16. Wildavsky, The Politics of Budgetary Process, 24.

17. William A. Niskanen, Bureaucracy and Representative Government (Chicago: Adine-Atherton, 1971); Thomas E. Borcherding, Budgets and Bureaucrats: The Sources of Government Growth (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1977); and J. Stephen Ferris and Edwin G. West, “Cost Disease versus Leviathan Explanations of Rising Government Cost: An Empirical Investigation,” Public Choice 98, no. 2 (1999): 307.

18. Henrekson, “Swedish Government Growth: A Disequilibrium Analysis,” 71; Paul Renaud and Frans van Winden, “Political Accountability for Price Stability and Unemployment in a Multi-Party System with Coalition Governments,” Public Choice 53, no. 3 (1987): 185; Stephen and West, “Cost Disease versus Leviathan Explanations of Rising Government Cost,” 309.

19. Martin Paldam, “The Political Business Cycles,” in Perspective on Public Choice, ed. Dennis Mueller, 141 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); and Alberto Alesina, and N. Roubini, “Political Business Cycles in OECD Economies,” Review of Economic Studies 59, no. 2 (1992): 669.

20. Walter Korpi, The Working Class in Welfare Capitalism (New York: Routledge and Paul, 1978). Gosta Esping-Anderson, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990); and Geoffrey Garrett, Partisan Politics in the Global Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

21. Kaufman and Segura-Ubiergo, “Globalization, Domestic Politics, and Social Spending in Latin America,” 568; and David Brown and Wendy Hunter, “Democracy and Social Spending in Latin America,” American Political Science Review 93, no. 2 (1999): 781.

22. Lindert, Growing Public, 39.

23. National Economic and Social Development Board, Thailand's Macro-Economic Data (Bangkok: NESDB, 2007).

24. U. G. Gerdtham and J. R. Jonsson, “International Comparison of Health Expenditure: Theory, Data, and Econometric Analysis,” in Handbook of Health Economics, ed. World Health Organization, 116 (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000).

25. Irwin W. Gillespie, “The Incidence of Taxes and Public Expenditures in the Canadian Economy,” Studies of the Royal Commission on Taxation no. 2 (1964); “Public Expenditures and Income Distribution,” in Essays in Fiscal Federalism, ed. Richard A. Musgrave 122–86 (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1965).

26. Marcelo Selowsky, Who Benefits from Government Expenditure? A Case Study of Colombia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979); and Jacob Meerman, Public Expenditures in Malaysia: Who benefits and Why? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).

27. Lionel Demery, “Benefit Incidence: A Practitioner's Guide,” mimeograph, Poverty and Social Development Group, World Bank (New York, NY, 2000); and Stephen D. Younger, “The Relative Progressivity of Social Services in Ecuador,” Public Finance Review (1999).

28. Direk Patmasiriwat, Characteristics of the Distribution of the Tax burden and Expenditure Benefits in Thailand 27, no. 3 [in Thai] (Bangkok: Thailand Development Research Institute, 1999), 176.

29. Ministry of Public Health, Thailand Health Profile, 24.

30. Social Security Office, Social Security and Welfare Statistics, 20.